Skip to main content

Full text of "History of New Hampshire"

See other formats

T T 

4. .H 





^ ^ 4. 








Ex Libris 


Katharine F. Richmond 

' 4 



Henry C, Fall i 




4 iy^-^ ^ 4 4 4 4 

■W^' ' . ^fr--- 

W^:: ^"fY f. 




i, ^ ^ ^ % ^::.;^.i^;;-^^_ 

^ % -I- SK li^ ^ ^^^ ^ f -m,'"'^.r'^^.:'^. 

^^ ^ -^ ^ ^ ^^ .^-^^ ^,: ^^/:!^,^^ 

'•f €; ■* ^ % *#^ ^ ^ ^ 

•* H^ SI. % i^./:-f _:^-.-^;:/^^^^ 

-# ilk ^-^^ -^ -* ^- ^^ ^ ^ :«.:^^y^^^^--^ 
^ ^ ^ SK ^ ---^ iK ^ i^ -^, ^^.-^^;^^^ 

^ ::^. ^ ^ ,^ ^ ^ ^ ^. ^:-^_^^^^^ 

:# ^-:^--:-^. .^ ^ ^ ^ # -«^ ■ ^:;'%;.^'i^.::^^ 

=T» lifc. "^ ^^it ' -""^iJl^ r'^B=^^- -i^lt, --=^|fe ^^--,»j|l|^ ^a>^ - -■>^|^ ^^ --Jtfc "^ .iJkfc 

>^ ▼" ^ ^P^?- /HF; - ^:^Tl^: - -^^v- UPSvr- riF^;-- ^^^^P'.v- ,^|^;:;- -T^ffc- :HP 

j^ >^j^ -^-^^j|c/- '^:'i»j||t:. •-- - te." ^^^•^^Jti:;-" "^^^^;^»jfc--- ' '-^^.^^^^ '''^-j^ '"^^jiv^ - '^^^^^^Jj- '"^^^-Afc--' ^ 


#- ; -^*^''^^^ 

^ -^^, /:.#■■■ -^ -^. 

T» ■ -^Slfer *ilt -'^b' =%4fe ^fe. ^%Jfc -4^ -H*fc ^^t- -'"j^lk- -- -tfc -^=^dk.-- 

■^' ■ - jir ^^^^:- -^- ^- • ^'^- -^^^#e-:''^N*te; "^;. ;'^:: ■■"^#- ;' -^^^ ''-^ --^ . 







Author of "Old Kittery and Her Families," 
"History of Durham, N. H.," etc. 






T N the preparation of this history every possible effort has 
A been made to gather information from original sources. 
While former histories of New Hampshire have been utilized, 
their statements and views have been subjected to criticism and 
further research. Much that is new in the early history of New 
Hampshire has been gleaned from manuscripts recently copied 
in London under the direction of the New Hampshire Historical 
Society. That Society has given valuable aid in research work 
through its secretary, Mr. Otis G. Hammond, and his assistants. 
Miss Edith S. Freeman and Miss Ruth Brown. Footnotes 
reveal the authorities for the most important statements. All 
the published Province and State Papers, all the County and 
Town Histories have been consulted. It has been necessary to 
leave out much and to write in a condensed style. Multum in 
parvo has been the rule adopted. An effort has been made to 
avoid dryness and make the work readable, though what is dry 
to one reader may be of great interest to another. The aim has 
been to state the truth with charity and to put blame upon conduct 
only when a moral lesson demands it. 

The advisory board of editors, consisting of General Frank 
S. Streeter of Concord, William F. Whitcher of Woodsville, 
Judge Edgar Aldrich of Littleton, ex-Senator William E. Chan- 
dler of Concord, Charles A. Hazlett of Portsmouth, John Scales 
of Dover, and Rev. Burton W. Lockhart of Manchester, have 
given valuable advice and suggestions. Some have read the 
proof sheets carefully, made some corrections, added lines of 
information and led to modification of statements. Thanks are 
due to them for the interest shown and the help afforded. Yet 
it is not to be concluded that they are in any degree responsible 
for any statements of facts and opinions found in this history. 
They have advised and suggested, and the author has decided. 
He expects to shoulder all criticisms either from the historical 
or literary standpoint. 

By advice of the above mentioned board the political his- 
tory ends about the year 1884, a century after the adoption of 


the Constitution of the State. The results of very recent events 
can not now be estimated. The motives and merits of the principal 
actors are subject of debate. Time must elapse before the outcome 
can be measured. Some things now thought to be of little 
importance may loom up largely in the future. Some other 
things which now trouble many souls may appear as trifles after 
anothei generation has past. The interpretation of history is 
subsequent history to a very large extent. Therefore the his- 
tory proper ends with the fourth volume, and the author and 
the advisory board are not at all resi)onsible for anything found 
in the fifth volume. That is a supplement, biographical rather 
than historical, although every biography necessarily includes 
historical elements. Indeed it is the acts of leading men that 
form the principal part of history, and the most interesting 
part. There must be an incarnation of truth and righteousness 
in the lives of men before their power is much felt. Every noble 
and useful life is a help and inspiration to somebody. In the 
fifth, or supplementary, volume an honest effort is made to 
portray the lives of New Hampshire men of the last generation, 
who have really taken parts worth mentioning in the recent history 
of the State. Thus will be preserved the original material from 
which some future historian will certainly draw. 

To determine what biographical sketches should form a 
part of the fifth volume is a delicate task, for which the pub- 
lishers alone are responsible. Like a photographer they pose 
the subject in the best light and attitude possible. Nobody is 
pleased with his own picture unless it looks full as well as he 
himself does at his best, and love for the departed idealizes their 
remembered lives. 

The author assumes responsibility for all in the first four 
volumes except the chapters on "An Almost Successful Seces- 
sion" and on "Franklin Pierce — President," written by Mr. 
William F. Whitcher, one of the advisory board, who has de- 
voted special study to these themes. These chapters speak well 
for themselves. 

Although the history proper terminates thirty years ago, 
statistical information is brought down to date, as well as late 
events in the revision of the State Constitution, growth of 
schools and colleges, development of State Institutions, rise and 
extension of manufactures and means of transportation. These 

items of information will be found in their appropriate places. 

It has been the desire and effort of the author to make this 
history illustrative of truth, righteousness, patriotism and human 
brotherhood. The history of New Hampshire is a record of 
the lives of many noble and efficient men. Every native of the 
Granite State should be proud of the deeds they wrought and 
the character they exhibited. 


Concord, N. H., September 23, 1916. 

The Society would express its obligations to Mr. Charles A. 
Hazlett, of Portsmouth, N. H., for use of various plates and 


Chapter p^c^ 

I. The Beginning , 

II. The Four Towns 2q 

III. New Hampshire Absorbed bj' Massachusetts 53 

IV. First Conflict with the Indians 89 

V. New Hampshire a Royal Province 103 

VI. Governor Cranfield's Administration 125 

VII. The Ungoverned Govern Themselves 157 

VIII. King William's War 171 

IX. Five Troublous and Troubled Governors 193 

X. Queen Anne's War 219 

XI. Administration of Governor Shute and His Lieutenants, 

Vaughan and Wentworth 233 

XII. The Fourth Indian War 251 

XIII. Administrations of Governors Burnet and Belcher 265 

XIV. Controversy about Boundary Lines 283 

XV. The Masonian Proprietors 303 

XVI. Administration of Governor Benning Wentworth 317 

XVII. Towns Granted by the Masonian Proprietors 349 

XVIII. Towns Granted by Governor Benning Wentworth 365 

Appendix A — The Great House 373 

Appendix B — An Old Deed 379 

Index of Subjects and Places 385 

Index of Names 398 

Chapter I 

chapter I 

The Value of History — First Things — Early Fishermen — Martin Pring — 
Champlain — Capt. John Smith — Grant to John Mason — David Thomson, 
First Settler — Mason's Hall — Edward and William Hilton — Division of 
Land of Sir Ferdinando Gorges and Capt. John Mason — Laconia — 
Settlements at Newichawannock and Strawberry Bank — Ambrose 
Gibbons — Sketches of the First Settlers — Dissolution of the Council of 
New England — Is Mason's Royal Charter Authentic? — Death and 
Character of Mason. 

BY learning and wisely interpreting the events of the past, we 
seek to better understand the present and forecast the future. 
History is the handmaid of prophecy. The roots of the present 
reach down and back to the beginning of things. We would 
like to start with creation, as the Hebrew historian did, and 
trace the annals down through the ages, hoping thus to learn 
the chain of causes. Events, like moving pictures, pass before 
an ever changing company of on-lookers, and interest in the 
present obscures memory of the past. Few have time and in- 
clination to roll the film back and review slowly and thought- 
fully the historic play as one connected and inseparable whole. 
Indeed this is impossible ; we can only approximate such an 
endeavor. We dig and search for old records as for hid treasure, 
and when a few have been discovered it is the patient life-work 
of the historian to put them together, like pieces of a dissected 
map, in proper logical order. 

First things fascinate us. Who discovered New Hamp- 
shire? Who first landed on her shores? When came they and 
for what purpose? Where were the first settlements made? 
What were the first forms of government? Such questions con- 
front conflicting claims and evidences. Answers should be given 
impartially and without prejudice. 

There can be no doubt that fishermen came often to the 
mouth of the Pascataqua many years, perhaps centuries, before 
any settlement was made on the coast of New England. Watts 
Fort, a little island in the Pascataqua, off Leighton's Point, in 



Eliot, Maine, now covered with water at high tide, once had 
thereon an orchard and a habitation. Nobody surely knows the 
origin of the name, found in earliest deeds. Perhaps it was once 
the rendezvous of fishermen, while Franks Fort, just below it, 
may have been headquarters for an opposing band, the Franks, 
from Brittany. The Rev.William Hubbard of Ipswich, who wrote 
a history of New England before the year 1682, says that the 
Pascataqua was "a river of noat" and that it had been "fre- 
quented ever since the country was first planted, by such as 
came this way for trafficke with the inhabitants, natives and 
others, that have seated themselves in plantations about the 
uppermost branches thereof." It was probably a well known 
river long before there were any plantations on its banks. Fisher- 
men were on the coast of Newfoundland at a very early date, 
and some adventurous spirits must have sailed along the coast 
of Maine and New Hampshire. Finding abundance of cod and 
mackerel about the Isles of Shoals and the waters of the Pas- 
cataqua and its tributaries swarming with salmon and sturgeon, 
they came again and brought others, returning to Europe to 
find a market. 

The first discoverer of this region, of whom there is any 
historical record, was Capt. Martin Pring, sent by some mer- 
chants of Bristol, England, in the year 1G03. His small ship of 
thirty tons was named the Speedwell. The crew consisted of 
thirty men and boys. Edmund Jones was his mate and Robert 
Salterne was chief agent. A bark, called the Discoverer, ac- 
companied them, with William Brown as master and a crew of 
thirteen men and a boy. Samuel Kirkland was the mate of 
this little vessel of twenty-six tons. They sailed by leave of 
Sir Walter Raleigh, for the further discovery of North Virginia, 
as the New England of today was then called. April tenth they 
set sail from Milford Haven. "In June they fall in with the 
main coast and a multitude of islands in 43 deg. and 30 min. 
north, land upon them, coast along the shore near unto Cape 
Cod bay, sail around the cape, anchor on the south side in 41 
deg. and 25 min., where they land in another bay and excellent 
harbor, make a barricado and stay seven weeks." Pring savs 
that he rowed up an inlet ten or twelve miles. This was prob- 
ably the Pascataqua, and he may have reached Newichawan- 



nock, Cochecho, Shankhassick, or Squamscot, the names Indians 
then gave to South Berwick, Dover, Oyster River and Exeter 

Martin Pring is called "a man very sufficient for his place." 
He was born probably in 1580, in the parish of Awliscombe, 
near Honiton, Devon. After his voyage to these shores he en- 
tered the service of the East India Company. He commanded 
an English squadron in 1617 and died in 1626. A monument 
to his memory is in St. Stephens church, Bristol, with the in- 
scription, "To the Pious Memorie of Martin Pringe, merchant, 
sometime General to the East Indies and one of ye Fraternity 
of the Trinity House," etc.^ 

Samuel de Champlain's account of his voyage along the 
coast of Maine declares that he saw three or four rather prom- 
inent islands, isles asses haute, and on the west Ipswich bay. 
These must have been the Isles of Shoals.^ 

In 1614 Capt. John Smith sailed along the coast of Maine 
and New Hampshire and in his report made mention of Smith's 
Isles, which did not retain his name but were known as early 
as 1630 and probably before Smith visited them as the Isles 
of Shoals, where fishermen set up their flakes. Smith speaks 
also of the river Pascataque, — notice the French way of spelling 
it, — as "a safe harbor with a rocky shore." On his return to 
England he published a description of the country seen, with 
a map of the seacoast, which he presented to Prince Charles, 
who gave the country the name New England. Smith is best 
known as a prisoner among the Indians of Virginia, whom Poca- 
hontas rescued from the tomahawk. 

Doubtless many others, fishermen, traders and adventurers, 
carried back to England reports concerning this country and 
its wealth of fish and forest. The greatest hope of the first ex- 
plorers was to find mines of gold and silver, such as had lured 
the Spanish to Peru and Mexico. Merchants of London and of 
Bristol were eager for gain. They formed companies and sent 
out settlers just as men are now doing with reference to Alaska. 
It is the prospect of gain that beckons colonists to distant lands. 

1 Prence's Annals of New England, p. 103 ; Purchas His Pilgrim, Vol. 
IV.; Mag. of Am. Hist.. VHI, 840-44. 
2Jenness' The Isle of Shoals, p. 18. 


November 3, 1620, King James I granted to forty noblemen, 
knights and gentlemen, styled "the Councill established at Ply- 
mouth, in the county of Devon, for the planting, ruling, order- 
ing and governing of New England in America," a charter em- 
bracing the territory between forty and forty-eight degrees of 
north latitude, stretching through the continent from sea to sea. 
The breadth of this was from near the mouth of St. Lawrence 
river to the vicinity of Philadelphia. This Council of Plymouth 
was formed by the petition of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, "captain 
of our fort and island of Plymouth," and certain other adven- 

On the ninth day of March, 1621/2, the above named cor- 
poration, called in the grant "the President & Counsell of New 
England," granted to "John Mason, Gent, and inhabitant of 
the citty of London," a great headland or cape lying in the 
northernmost parts of the Massachusetts country, "knowne by 
the Names of Cape Frabizzand or Cape Anne," lying between 
the Naumkeag and the Merrimack rivers and stretching west- 
ward to the farthest head of said rivers, together with the great 
Isle or Island, henceforth to be called Isle Mason, lying Neare 
or before the Bay harbor or ye river of Aggawam." This stretch 
of land "the said John Mason with the consent of the President 
and Councill intendeth to name Mariana." The Council author- 
ized Ambrose Gibbons or other officer to be their true and law- 
ful attorney, to deliver possession and seizin to John Mason.^ 

It is claimed that Ambrose Gibbons made a small settle- 
ment at Cape Anne in 1622 or 1623, and that in 1630 he was 
ousted by the Massachusetts Bay Company, whose grant covered 
the same territory. This claim was made in 1679, when the 
title of Robert Mason to New Hampshire was fully set forth 
by his agent.* The fact that Gibbons is mentioned in the charter 
of 1622 as the person to whom possession was to be delivered 
and the fact also that he reappears in 1630 at Newichawannock 
(South Berwick, Me.) as agent of Capt. John Mason seem to 
favor this claim. 

On the tenth day of August, 1622, the President and Coun- 
cil of New England granted to Sir Ferdinando Gorges and Capt. 

3 N. H. State Papers. Vol. 29, pp. 19-23. 

4 N. H. State Papers, Vol. XVII, p. 534. 


John Mason of London a territory to be known as the Province 
of M-aine, lying- between the Merrimack and the Sagadahock 
(Kennebec) rivers and "to the furthest heads of said Rivers & 
soe upwards into the land westward untill threescore miles be 
finished from ye first entrance of the aforesaid rivers & half 
way over, that is to say to the midst of the said two rivers," 
and all the islands to within five leagues distance from the coast. 
Little was then known of the direction of these rivers, and they 
were supposed to be somewhat parallel and both flowing west 
to east. Capt. Robert Gorges was authorized to deliver posses- 
sion and seizin.^ 

Thus far we have been dealing with discoveries and char- 
ters; we now come to actual settlements. An indenture has 
been found, dated December 14, 1622, between David Thomson 
of Plymouth, England, who had been employed by the Council 
of New England as messenger or agent, and three merchants, 
Abraham Colmer, Nicholas Sherwill and Leonard Pomery. The 
indenture recounts that the Council of New England had granted, 
October 16, 1622, six thousand acres of land and one island in 
and upon the coast of New England to the aforesaid David 
Thomson. Nothing is said in the indenture about the location 
of this grant, as to just where in New England it might be 
found. If Thomson had previously visited New England and 
selected his land, then this grant was in direct conflict with the 
grant made to Gorges and Mason only two months before. It 
is more likely that Thomson was allowed to choose his six 
thousand acres and his island anywhere within the territory 
controlled by the Council, so as not to interfere with the rights 
of other grantees, and when he found out that there was a prior 
claim to the land whereon he actually settled at Pascataqua, he 
abandoned his plantation there begun. Indeed the indenture 
reads that Thomson and those sent with him, as soon as they 
were landed in New England, should "find oute some fitt place or 
places there, for the choice of the said sixe thousand acres of 
land." He did not select it all in one place, as we shall see. It was 
agreed that the three aforementioned merchants should send 
over four men with the said David Thomson in the good ship 

5 N. H. State Papers. Vol. XXIX, pp. 23-28. 


called the Jonathan of Plymouth and also three men more in 
the ship called the Providence of Plymouth, together with vict- 
uals and provisions for three months, all to be sent this present 
year, making with Thomson eight men. The Public Record 
Office in London contains the following, in a catalogue of 
Patents granted for plantations in New England, "1622, a 
Patent to David Thompson, M. Jobe, M. Sherwood of Plymouth, 
for a pt of Piscattowa River in New England." This imperfect 
memorandum was made about the time of the Restoration of 
King Charles H, or about forty years after the grant, with 
change of names and insertion of the place selected after the 
grant was made. The record shows that Thompson's Point, in 
the Pascataqua, was known in London at an early date. 

Governor Winslow, in 1624, calls David Thomson a Scotch- 
man, and Hubbard, the historian, makes the same statement, 
probably quoting from the earlier authority. The marriage, 
however, of David Thomson, apothecary, to Amias Cole, was 
recorded in Plymouth, England, July 13, 1613. She was daugh- 
ter of William Cole, shipwright and mariner, who, April 8, 161 5, 
leased unto said Thomson for six years a part of his house 
recently built, "neare the old conduit," in Plymouth. Mention 
is made of her "children" in 1625, and the business transactions 
of her son, John Thomson, make it probable that he was born 
soon after the marriage of his parents and so was not the first 
white child born in New Hampshire, as some have assumed 
and asserted.^ 

David Thomson came over in the spring of 1623 and built 
a house at Little Harbor. The foundation stones of his chimney 
may be seen at Odiorne's Point. The whole region about the 
mouth of the river was then called Pascataquack, Pascataqua, 
or Pascataway. Here Thomson was visited in November, 1623, 
by Capt. Christopher Levett, who calls the place Pannaway. 
He staid a month with Thomson and here met Gov. Robert 
Gorges. Phineas Pratt also visited Thomson in 1623 at Pas- 

Gov. Edward Winslow's book, Good News of New Eng- 
land, published in 1624, says that in 1623 "Capt. Standish being 
formerly employed by the governor to buy provisions for the 

• Aspinwall's Notarial Records, passim. 


refurnishing of the colony returned with the same, accompanied 
with Mr. David Thomson, a Scotchman, who also that spring 
began a plantation twenty-five leagues northwest from us, near 
Smith's Isles, at a place called Pascataquack, where he liketh 
well." This fixes definitely the date of the first settlement in 
New Hampshire. 

Thomas Morton's book, The New English Canaan, written 
in 1635 and published at Amsterdam in 1637, after ten years 
of experience in New England, names David Thomson, a Scot- 
tish gentleman, among the scholars and travelers of good judg- 
ment who conjectured the natives of New England to have been 
descended "from the scattered Trojans, after such time as Brutus 
departed from Latium."'^ Geraldus Cambrensis argues a similar 
origin for the Welsh people. Such opinions may be classified 
with that which traces the English people back to the ten lost 
tribes of Israel. 

As for Mason's Hall, said to have been built by Thomson, 
it existed only in the fancy of careless historians. Thomson had 
no reason to build or name such a stone house. He probably 
built a house of pine logs, with chimney of stone set in clay, at 
its north end. He probably also built a house at Thomson's 
Point, on the west side of the Newichawannock, the Indian name 
of the river that empties into the Pascataqua at Hilton's Point. 
The house was a short distance below the mouth of the Cochecho 
river, at a place recently called Gage's Point. Thomson's Point 
House is in the Dover tax list of 1648, and this was the well 
chosen place for fish-weirs. In the vicinity some graves have 
been found. Possibly Edward Hilton was one of the seven men 
who came over with Thomson and built this house for Thomson 
and here set up his weirs. 

About 1626 Thomson left his possessions at the mouth of 
the Pascataqua and went to an island in Boston Harbor, ever 
since called Thomson's Island. It is a reasonable conjecture, 
that having chosen his six thousand acres at what was afterward 
called Dover Neck he disposed of the same to Edward Hilton, 
who subsequently obtained a grant for this tract and more land 
on the south side of the river, thus to insure and enlarge his 
possessions. Thomson died soon after his removal, for his wife 

7 Morton's The New Conaan, published by the Prince Society, pp. 128-9, 


is called widow in 1628. Her second husband was Samuel 
Maverick, a very early settler at Noddle's Island, now East 
Boston, whence he was constrained to depart by the oppositions 
of the Puritans. We shall meet with him again. It has been 
asserted that John Thomson, son of David, settled in Mendon, 
Massachusetts, but the evidence is not conclusive.^ 

The settlements made by David Thomson at Odiorne's 
Point, in what is now the town of Rye, and at Thomson's Point 
in Dover were temporary and abandoned after a few years, 
somewhat after the manner of the Popham settlement near the 
mouth of the Kennebec in 1607. We come now to the first 
permanent settlement in New Hampshire, made in 1623 by Ed- 
ward Hilton at the end of Dover Neck, called ever since Hilton's 

The historian Hubbard says that with Thomson came in 
1623 Edward Hilton and William Hilton. This has been dis- 
puted, but the evidence seems now to leave no room for doubt. 
William Hilton's son, William, in a petition to the Massachu- 
setts General Court, before 1660, says that his "father, William 
Hilton, came over into New England about the yeare Anno 
Dom : 1621 and your petitioner came about one yeare & an halfe 
after ,and in a little time following settled ourselves upon the 
River of Pischataq with Mr. Edw. Hilton, who were the first 
English planters there. "^ 

Edward and William Hilton had been fishmongers in Lon- 
don, where the former appears as a member of the fishmonger's 
guild in 1621. In 1628, according to Gov. Bradford, he con- 
tributed one pound toward the expenses of the arrest and trans- 
portation of Thomas Morton of Merry Mount. William Hilton 
came to Plymouth, Massachusetts, in the ship Fortune, Novem- 
ber II, 1621, and his wife and two children came in the ship 
Anne, arriving in July or August, 1623. They had allotments of 
land, four acres, in Plymouth, in 1623. This William Hilton 
planted corn in that part of Kittery which is now Eliot, just 
across the river from Hilton's Point, in 1634.^*^ Later he lived 

8 See Shurtleff's Hist, of Boston for particulars about Thomson vs. 
Dorchester as Claimants for Thomson's Island. 

9 N. E. Historic Geneological Register, Vol XXXVI, p. 41. 
10 Stackpole's Old Kittery and Her Families, p. 111. 


at Kittery Point and at York, Maine. Evidently Edward Hilton 
came before his brother William to Hilton's Point, and probably 
with Thomson in the spring of 1623. Another person who came 
with Hilton was Thomas Roberts, as tradition says, some of 
whose descendants are now living on Dover Neck. The spot 
where Thomas Roberts first lived is pointed out to those inter- 
ested in first things, while Hilton's house stood very near the 
site of the hotel at Hilton's Point. The location bears testi- 
mony to their good judgment and appreciation of the beautiful 
in natural scenery. They probably had charge of Thomson's 
fish-weir at Thomson's Point, perhaps two miles further up the 
river Newichawannock, or Fore River, as it came to be called 
by the early settlers, and doubtless they had independent fishing 
in the racing tides that flow between Hilton's Point and the 
opposite point in what is now Newington, which early acquired 
the name of Bloody Point. When Thomson left, Hilton remained 
and by occupation and improvement acquired possession of the 
six thousand acres that had been granted to the former. Hilton's 
right to this and adjacent lands was recognized by the President 
and Council of New England, March 12, 1629, when they 
granted to Edward Hilton, "for and in consideration that he 
and his associates hath already at his and their owne proper 
costs and charges transported sundry servants to plant in New 
England aforesaid, at a place there called by the natives Wecana- 
cohunt, otherwise Hilton's Point, lying some two leagues from 
the mouth of the river Pascataquack in New England afore- 
said, where they have already Built some houses and planted 
Corne, And for that he doth further intend by God's divine as- 
sistance to transport thither more people and cattle," — granted 
to him "all that part of the River Pascataquack called or known 
by the name of Wecanacohunt or Hilton's Point with the south 
side of the said river up to the fall of the river and three miles 
into the Maine land by all the breadth aforesaid." This is 
known as the Squamscot Patent, so called from the Indian name 
of Exeter river. It included portions of the present towns of 
Newington, Greenland, Stratham and Exeter up to the first fall 
in Exeter river. It seems strange that this patent should be 
given by the same company of men that a few years before had 
granted to Capt. John Mason a territory that included the same 


land now granted to Hilton, yea, and very soon after confirmed 
Mason in possession of this same land. On the seventh day 
of July, 163 1, Thomas Lewis gave possession of this tract to 
Edward Hilton by "Livery and Seizin." The records of Massa- 
chusetts speak repeatedly of this tract of land as covered by 
two patents, whereas there was only one. The part at Hilton's 
Point has been estimated to contain three thousand five hundred 
acres. Mr. John S. Jonness argues that the intent of the original 
grant to Hilton was, that his land extended from Hilton's Point 
up to Quamphegan falls in the Newichawannock and that in- 
terested parties purposely misinterpreted the location of the 
grant. But the patent distinctly reads "the south side of the 
said river up to the fall," and it is impossible to make the west 
side of the Newichawannock mean the south side of the Pas- 
cataqua, which was the Indian name of the flood that pours out 
of Great and Little bays. Moreover, Hilton had lived long 
enough to learn where the good land was, and that stretching 
along the west side of the Newichawannock is very inferior in 
fertility and ease of access to that on the south side of the Pas- 

In the year 1629 Sir Ferdinando Gorges and Capt. John 
Mason agreed to divide the grant made to them of the afore- 
said province of Maine, and on the seventh of November of 
that year the President and Council of New England, seated at 
Plymouth, England, granted to Mason a province, to be called 
New Hampshire, "all yt part of ye Mane land in New England 
lying upon ye sea Coaste beginning from ye middle part of 
Merrimack River & from thence to proceed Northwards along 
ye Sea coaste to Pascattaway river & soe forwards up within 
ye sd river to ye furthest head thereof & from thence North- 
westwards until Threescore miles be finished from ye first en- 
trance of passcataway river & also from Merrimack through ye 
sd river & to ye furthest head thereof & soe forward up into 
ye land Westwards untill Threescore miles be finished and from 
thence to cross over land to ye Threescore miles end accounted 
from Passcataway river, together with all Islands & Isletts 

11 N. H. State Papers, Vol. I. pp. 29. 209, 211, 217; N. E. Reg., Vol. 
XXIV, p. 264. 


wthin five leagues distance of ye premises & abutting upon ye 
same or any parte or parcel thereof," reserving tv^o-fifth of the 
ore of gold and silver, which tract "ye sd Capt. John Mason 
intends to name New Hampshire." Capt. Walter Neale was 
declared lawful attorney to deliver possession and seizin.^- 

Only ten days later than the grant just mentioned, that is, 
November 17, 1629, a grant was made to Sir Ferdinando Gorges 
and Capt. John Mason of "all those lands & Countrys lying 
adjacent or bordering upon ye great lake or lakes or rivers 
commonly called or known by ye name of ye river & lake or 
rivers & lakes of ye Irroquis a Nation or nations of Salvage 
people inhabiting up into ye landwards betwixt ye lines of west 
& Northwest conceived to passe or lead upwards from ye rivers 
of Sagadahock & Merrimack in ye Country of New England 
aforesaid Together with ye lakes & rivers of ye Irroquis & other 
Nations adjoining, ye midle part of wch lakes is scittuate & 
lying nearabout ye latitude of forty four or forty five degrees 
reckon'd from ye Equinoctial line Northwards as alsoe all ye 
lands, Soyle & grounds wthin tenn miles of any partof said 
lakes or rivers on ye south or west part thereof & from yewest 
end or sides of ye sd lakes & rivers soe farre forth to ye west as 
shall extend half way into ye next great lake to ye Westwards 
& from thence Northwards unto ye north side of ye maine river 
wch runeth from ye great & most westerne lakes & falleth into 
ye river of Canada. "^^ The intention expressed in the grant was to 
name this province Laconia. Gorges and Mason covenanted to 
govern their plantations according to the laws of England Snd 
within three years to build a fort with a competent guard and 
to settle at least ten families. They were given permission to 
take possession of one thousand acres of land on any ports, 
harbors, or creeks in Nevv England, not already occupied, whence 
it would be most commodious to transport merchandize to the 
great lakes. Edward Godfrey was named to deliver possession 
and seizin. It is evident that the grantors did not know the 
direction of the rivers named, nor the distance of lake Champlain 
from the seacoast, nor the difficulty of reaching the region 
granted. They conceived that Laconia lay back of and adjoining 

12 N. H. State Papers, Vol. I, pp. 21-26. 

13 N. H. State Papers, Vol. XXIX, pp. 33-38. 


to the previous grant that reached sixty miles inland from the 
ocean. The tract called Laconia had nothing to do with New 
Hampshire, and nothing was ever done by Gorges and Mason 
to develop the tract, save that the agent of Mason, Capt. Walter 
Neale, tried to explore a way thereto and failed to reach the 
goal of his journey. 

It may have been for the development of Laconia that an 
indenture was drawn up and sealed November 3, 1631, between 
the President and Council of New England and Sir Ferdinando 
Gorges, Capt. John Mason and their associates, John Cotton, 
Henry Gardner, George Griffith, Edwin Guy, Thomas Wanner- 
ton, Thomas Eyre and Eliezer Wyer, wherein the Council unto 
the aforesaid persons did "grant, bargaine, sell, assigne, aliene, 
sett over, enfoffe and confirme" to them, in consideration of the 
fact that already they had done much for the advancement of the 
plantation, in the making of clapboards, pipe staves, salt pans 
and salt, in transporting vines, in searching for iron ore, and in 
the expenditure of upwards of three thousand pounds, "All that 
house and chiefe habitacon situate and being at Pascataway in 
New England aforesaid, wherein Capt. Walter Neale and ye 
Colony with him doth or lately did reside, together with the 
Gardens and Corngrounds occupied and planted by the sd 
Colonic, and the Salt workes allready begun aforesd. And also 
all that porcon of land lying within the precincts hereafter 
menc'oned beginning upon the Seacoast 5 miles to ye Wtward of 
or from the sd chiefe Habitacon now possessed by ye sd Capt. 
Walter Neale for the use of the adventurers to Laconia (being 
in the latitude of 43 degrs or thereabouts in the Harbour of 
pascataquack al's Pascataquack al's Pascataway), and so forth 
from ye sd beginning Eastwd & North Eastwd and so preceed- 
ing Northwds or North Westwds into ye harbour and River 
along the Coasts & Shoares thereof including all the Islands and 
Isletts lying wthin or neere unto the same upwards into the 
headland opposite unto the plantacon or Habitacon now or late 
in the Tenure or Occupation of Edwd Hilton & from thence 
Wtwds & South Wtwds in ye midle of ye River and through 
ye midle of ye Bay or lake of Boquacack al's Boscaquack or by 
what other name or names it hath towards the bottome or West- 
ermost part of ye River called Pascassockes to the falls thereof, 


and from thence by an Imaginary Line to pass over, and to the 

sea, where the pambulacon began, And also the 

Isles of Shoales, and ye fishings thereabouts, and all the seas 
within 15 miles of the aforesd Sea Coasts, And also all the Sea 
Coasts and Land lying on ye East and Northeast side of the 
Harboure and River of Pascataway aforesd and opposite to the 
bounds above menc'oned, beginning 15 miles to ye S : eastwards 
of ye mouth or first entrance and beginning of the said Har- 
boure, and so crossing into the Landward, at right angle by the 
space of 3 miles the whole length thereof from ye sd mouth or 
first entrance from the Sea and Eastwds into ye Sea, wch sd 3 
Miles shall be allowed for the breadth of ye sd land last menc'- 
oned both upon ye land and sea." This description takes in the 
present towns of Rye, Portsmouth, Newington, Greenland and 
Stratham in New Hampshire, and in Maine the towns of Kittery, 
Eliot, South Berwick, Berwick, North Berwick and a portion 
of Lebanon. Capt. Thomas Cammock or Henry Jocelyn was 
authorized to deliver possession and seizin. Here, too, we see 
that a portion of the land thus granted was included in the 
grant made to Edward Hilton a little while before in what is 
known as the Squamscot Patent. The Council of New England, 
at Plymouth, England, had a way of granting lands again and 
again, seemingly without any reference to maps or records of 
previous proceedings. 

The above is called a grant and confirmation of Piscataway. 
The company to whom it was granted has been called the 
Laconia Company, because of the word Laconia in the inden- 
ture, and it may be that from this region as a base of supplies 
the intention was to develope the region about lake Champlain. 
The company did not remain long in existence, and in the divi- 
sion of its property on the east side of the Pascataqua river, 
December 6, 1633, Newichawannock fell to Capt. John Mason, 
to whom Sir Ferdinando Gorges gave a deed, September 17, 
1635, of a strip of land three miles broad and about fifteen miles 
long, reaching from a quarter of a mile below the mouth of 
Great Works river to within the present town of Lebanon, 
Maine. Doubtless Mason acquired possession of this tract be- 
cause of his having already planted a settlement and built mills 
there. Indeed more is recorded about this settlement than about 


the other made by him at Strawberry Bank, now Portsmouth. 
While Capt. Walter Neale was his agent at Strawberry Bank, 
Ambrose Gibbons conducted operations at Newichawannock, on 
the upper falls of the Asbenbedick, or Great Works river, in 
what is now South Berwick, Maine. Thither came, with Am- 
brose Gibbons, Thomas Spencer and William Chadbourne, both 
of whom remained after Gibbons left the place. The correspond- 
ence of Gibbons is of great interest, showing the difficulties and 
disappointments of proprietor and settlers. Mills and houses 
were erected ; a vineyard was planted in the low ground below 
the upper falls ; and considerable trade was carried on with the 
Indians through the friendly sagamore Rowls at Quamphegan, 
the Indian name of the site of the village of South Berwick. It 
is probable that Gibbons removed to Saunders Point before the 
death of Mason and he was living there in 1640. Henry Jocelyn 
testified, July 4, 1661, that about twenty-eight or twenty-nine 
years ago Walter Neale gave to Ambrose Gibbons a tract of 
land in Pascattaway River, called Sanders Point, lying between 
the Little Harbor and Sagamore Creek.^* Under date of De- 
cember 5, 1632, Mason and other proprietors wrote to Gibbons 
thus, "You desire to settle yourself upon Sander's Point. The 
adventurers are willing to pleasure you not only in this, in re- 
gard of the good report they have heard of you from tyme to 
tyme, but alsoe after they have conferred with Capt. Neale, they 
determine some further good for your incouridgment," and on 
the thirteenth of July, 1633, Gibbons replied, "For my settlement 
at Sanders Point, and the further good you intend me, I humbly 
thank you ; I shall do the best I can to be grateful. "^^ The 
"further good" here mentioned may have been a grant of two 
hundred acres of land on the south side of Oyster River, in the 
present town of Durham, about a mile below the Falls, where 
his cellar on a commanding hill of the old Burnham farm may be 
easily found and where Gibbons died in 1656.^^ He was one of 
the first board of selectmen of Dover. Tradition says that he 
was buried at Saunders Point. The only child of Gibbons, Re- 
becca, married Henry Sherburne, who received the place and 

14 N. H. Prov. Deeds, V, 83. 

15 N. H. Prov. Papers. I, 69, 81. 

36 Hist, of Durham, N. H., I, 56, and Old Kittery and Her Families, 
-pp. 21-24, 26-36. 


conveyed it, January 29, 1677/8, to his son, John Sherburne, 
about three acres. The name may have been derived from Ed- 
ward Saunders, who was a witness in 1643 ^^^ agent for Capt. 
Francis Champernowne in 1644. If so, Edward Saunders must 
be reckoned as one of the earliest settlers of New Hampshire. 

A list of stewards and servants sent over by Capt. John 
Mason has been handed down. It contains the names of fifty 
persons, besides eight Danes and twenty-two women, whose 
names are not given. This list was probably made some years 
after their coming and from memory and was used in connec- 
tion with a law suit. In it may be some mistakes and omissions. 
Of the women one was the wife of Ambrose Gibbons and an- 
other was wife of Roger Knight. Since many in the list were 
the earliest settlers of New Hampshire and numerous descend- 
ants may be found there now, it may be interesting to the gen- 
eral reader to know what has been gleaned concerning them, 
without the trouble of reference to many books and manuscripts. 

Capt. Walter Neale came over in 1630, having been a soldier 
by profession. He was governor of all New England east of 
Massachusetts, although he had but few people to govern. He 
built the earliest fortification on Great Island, now New Castle. 
On his return to England in 1633 ^^ ^^^ appointed captain of 
the London Artillery Company and retained that office till 1637. 
Nothing is known of his origin, family or subsequent career. 
A Walter Neal, born in 1633, was living in Greenland, N. H., 
from 1653 to 1702, from whom there are many descendants. 

Of Ambrose Gibbons, first steward of Mason's colonists, 
enough has been said already. 

Capt. Thomas Cammock was a nephew of the first Earl of 
Warwick and was sent over "for discoverie" or exploration. 
Neale gave him a deed of a large lot of land in what is now 
Eliot, Maine, which later became the Shapleigh homestead. In 
1631 he had from the Council of New England a grant at Black 
Point, in Scarborough, where he made his home. Henry Jocelyn 
married his widow, Margaret, and received nearly all the prop- 
erty of Cammock. 

William Raymond is named in the list, possibly an error 
for John Raymond, who was purser of the Pied Cow. Nothing 
more is known of either. 


Francis Williams is called governor. He made an agree- 
ment in 1635 with Sir Ferdinand© Gorges to plant a small colony 
on six thousand acres of land in any place he might chose. He 
brought with him to the Pascataqua eleven persons. His wife's 
name was Helen. Hubbard says that he died at Barbadoes 
about 1640. 

George Vaughan remained but a short time in the province. 
He started for England in 1634 and arrived the following year. 
William Vaughan came soon after. Whether they were related 
has not been determined. The Vaughan family were prominent 
in the early history of Portsmouth. 

Thomas Wonerton, or Wannerton, had charge of the house 
at Strawberry Bank till about 1644. He was killed in an attack 
upon a house on the Penobscot in that year. Winthrop says that 
he had "been a soldier many years and lived very wickedly." 
He should not be confused with the partner of Gorges and 
Mason, who bore the same name. He was once admonished by 
the local court for striking his w^fe with a stool and told to do 
so no more. His widow, Ann, married Thomas Williams of 
Portsmouth and in 1670 brought action against Richard Cutt for 
refusing to let them have the third of a house and land which 
was her former husband's. This was probably the Great House, 
built by William Chadbourne for Mason, and belonged to neither 
Wannerton nor Cutt, although both lived in it. 

Henry Jocelyn, born about 161 1, was son of Sir Thomas 
Jocelyn. He was a man of high character, holding official posi- 
tions and opposed to the claims of Massachusetts. He had land 
in what is now Eliot, and Watts' fort is once called "Point 
Joslain." He removed to Black Point, Scarborough, and thence 
to Pemaquid, where he died in 1683. 

Francis Norton was an inhabitant of Charlestown, Mass., 
in 1637. He was steward of Mrs. Ann Mason after 1638 and 
drove one hundred of her cattle to Boston and there sold them 
for twenty-five pounds apiece. He became a member of the 
church at Charlestown in 1642, and his sympathies were with 
the government of Massachusetts. 

Sampson Lane succeeded Wannerton as steward in 1644, 
returning to England after three years. Of the above mentioned 
ten governors or stewards only Ambrose Gibbons left a descend- 
ant in New England. 


Reginald, or Renald, Fernald was the surgeon or physician 
of Mason's company. He lived at Strawberry Bank and died 
in 1656 on Pierce's Island and was buried, tradition says, at the 
Point of Graves in Portsmouth. His wife, Joanna, died in 1660. 
He was a surgeon in the English navy, it is said, before coming 
to New Hampshire, resigning his post to come here. He served 
as Clerk of Court, Recorder of Deeds, Commissioner and Sur- 
veyor, and was town clerk at the time of his death. His descen- 
dants are said to number over fifty thousand. 

A deposition of Henry LangstafT, about 1699, states that 
Ralph Gee kept the cattle of Mason and was employed in making 
staves. He lived for a while in the house built by David Thom- 
son at Little Harbor. He had a plantation adjoining, which at 
his death in 1645 passed into the possession of William Seavey. 
Henry Gee also was one of Mason's servants, of whom nothing 
more is known. 

Another servant was William Cooper. Hubbard mentions 
the fact that a person named Cooper was drowned at Pascataqua 
in December, 1633. 

William Chadbourne was one of the millwrights and car- 
penters who came in 1634 to build the mills at Newichawannock 
or Great Works, Maine. His son, Humphrey Chadbourne, came 
in 163 1 and built the Great House at Strawberry Bank, after- 
wards settling at what is now South Berwick, Maine. From him 
are descended many prominent men, among them President Paul 
Chadbourne of Williams College. 

Francis Matthews married, November 22, 1622, Thomasine 
Channon, at Ottery St. Mary, Devonshire, and came over in 
1634. Wannerton in 1637 gave him a lease of a hundred acres 
of land for a thousand years on the northwest side of Great 
Island, "commonly called Muskito Hall." The title was after- 
ward disputed. He signed the Exeter Combination in 1639, then 
living at Oyster River Point, where he died in 1648. Many of 
his descendants write the surname Mathes. 

Francis Rand, born in 1616, lived at Portsmouth and was 
killed by Indians, September 29, 1691, his wife having been killed 
before. He left children, Thomas, John, Samuel, Nathaniel, 
Sarah Herrick and Mary Barnes. 

James Johnson, born in 1602, signed a petition from Bloody 


Point in 1643, was a ferryman in 1648 and had a part in the 
distribution of land in Portsmouth in 1657. Widow Mary John- 
son was living in Portsmouth in 1678. He left two daughters, 
Mary who married John Odiorne, and Hannah who married 
Thomas Jackson. 

Anthony Ellins lived in Portsmouth and died there about 
1681. His wife Abigail died the same year. 

Henry Baldwin, named in the list, is altogether unknown. 
No such name appears in early records of New Hampshire. 
Beatrice Baldwin is one of the legatees in Capt. John Mason's 

Thomas Spencer was born in England in 1596 and came over 
in 1630. He has the honor of being the first permanent settler 
in Maine, so far as historical records show. He married Patience, 
daughter of William Chadbourne, bought lands of the sagamore 
Rowls and lived at Quamphegan, now the village of South Ber- 
wick, Maine. He was a planter, lumberman and inn-keeper. He 
died December 15, 1681, and his descendants are very numerous. 

Thomas Furral and Thomas Herd are unknown. John 
Heard of Dover and another John Heard of Kittery are well 
known among the earliest settlers. 

Thomas Chatherton does not again appear. This may be 
an error for Michael Chatterton, who signed the grant for the 
Glebe in Portsmouth, in 1640. In 1646 the court ordered that 
"good wife Chatterton shall go to her husband before ye 20th of 
ye next month ; if she will not goe, to make a warrant to send 
her by the Marshall." 

John Crowther signed the grant of the Glebe in 1640. He 
sold land to Ambrose Lane in 1648 and died in 1652. His house, 
land and island were granted to John Jackson in 1656. 

John Williams is unknown. Thomas Williams of Ports- 
mouth and William Williams of Oyster River are well known. 

Roger Knight, born in 1596, bought land in Strawberry 
Bank of Thomas Wannerton in 1643 ^"^ ^^s living in Ports- 
mouth in 1667. His wife's name was Anne and a daughter, 
Mary, is said to have married John Brewster of Portsmouth. 

Henry Sherburne, son of Joseph and grandson of Henry, 
was baptized at Odiham, Hampshire, England, March 22, 161 1. 
His grandfather was of Beam Hall, Oxford. He came in the ship 


James, arriving June 12, 1632, in eight weeks from London. He 
married, November 13, 1637, Rebecca, only child of Ambrose 
and Rebecca Gibbons. She died June 3, 1663, and he married 
(2) Sarah, widow of Walter Abbot. Henry Sherburne was one 
of the associate judges and died in 1680, aged 69. His descend- 
ants are many, and some have held prominent places. 

John Goddard came as a millwright in 1634. He had a lot 
on Dover Neck in 1648 and was made freeman of Dover in 1653. 
He lived on the south side and near the mouth of Goddard's 
Creek, in what is now Newmarket, dying there in 1660. His 
widow, Welthean, married John Symonds. The surname be- 
came extinct with the next generation, A daughter Mary mar- 
ried Arthur Bennet, and another daughter, Martha, married 
James Thomas and (2) Elias Critchett. 

Thomas Fernald is supposed to have been a brother of Dr. 
Reginald Fernald. Nothing more is known of him. 

Thomas Withers was born in 1606. Sir Ferdinand© Gorges 
gave him a deed of four hundred acres in Kittery, directly op- 
posite the city of Portsmouth, and eight hundred acres more at 
the head of Spruce Creek, in Kittery. He was a Commissioner 
in 1644 and Deputy to the General Court in Boston in 1656. He 
died in 1685, and his widow, Jane, married William Godsoe of 
Kittery. Three daughters are known, Sarah who married John 
Shapleigh, Mary who married Thomas Rice, and Elizabeth who 
married Benjamin Berry and (2) Dodavah Curtis. 

Thomas Canney bought land of Capt. Thomas Wiggin in 
Dover in 1634. He lived in Newington, on the shore of the 
Pascataqua. Children were Thomas, Joseph, Mary who married 
Jeremy Tibbetts and a daughter who married Henry Hobbs of 
the place now known as Rollinsford. 

John Symonds came in 1634 and was in the employ of John 
Winter in 1636. He was a selectman of Kittery in 1659, living 
near the Boiling Rock, on the east bank of the Pascataqua. He 
was a juryman in Dover in 1672, having married the widow of 
John Goddard. A daughter, Rebecca, married William Hilton 
of Exeter. 

John Peverly was a resident of Portsmouth in 1678. Thomas 
Peverly was a land-owner there in 1657 and married Janc„ 


daughter of Thomas Walford, and had children, John, Thomas, 
Lazarus, Samuel, Jeremiah, Sarah and Martha. 

William Seavey, aged about 75 years, deposed, September 
3, 1676, that he came as a fisherman to the Isles of Shoals 
"about a year before Capt. Neale went from this country for 
England," that is, in 1632. He was a selectman in Portsmouth 
in 1657. He had a grant of fifty acres in 1652 in what is now 
the town of Rye. His children were William, John, who re- 
moved to Bradford, Mass., Elizabeth who married Odiorne, 

and Stephen. 

Henry LangstafT was living at Bloody Point, Newington, in 
1643 ^"d was selectman of Dover in 165 1 and several times 
later. He died July 18, 1705, aged nearly one hundred years. 
He had a son Henry and a son John, who removed to New Jersey 
about 1667. A daughter, Sarah, married Anthony Nutter. An- 
other daughter, Mary, married Eleazar Coleman. 

William Berry is said to have been the first settler at Sandy 
Beach, in the town of Rye. He died about 1654, and his widow, 
Jane, married Nathaniel Drake. Children were Joseph, John, 
James, William, and Elizabeth, who married John Locke. 

Thomas Walford was the first settler of Charlestown, Mass. 
He removed to Portsmouth and lived on Great Island and later 
at Sagamore Creek. He was a church warden in 1640 and died 
in 1656. His children were Thomas, Jeremiah, Martha who 
married Thomas Hinckson and (2) John Westbrook, Jane who 
married Thomas Peverly and (2) Goss, Hannah who mar- 
ried Jones, Mary who married William Brookin and (2) 

William Walker, and Elizabeth who married Henry Savage, 

James Wall, millwright and carpenter, signed the exeter 
Combination of 1639 and later lived in Hampton, where he died 
October 3, 1659. His daughters were Elizabeth who married 
Thomas Harvey, Sarah who married Thomas Dow, Mary who 
married John Marston, and Hannah who married Benjamin 
Moulton. There were no sons to perpetuate the surname. 

William Brookin or Brooking resided in Portsmouth from 
1657 or earlier. He married Mary, daughter of Thomas Walford 
and died in 1694. His widow married William Walker and was 
living in 1720 at a great age. His daughters were Rebecca who 
married Thomas Pomeroy, Mary who married Thomas Lucy, Sarah 


who married Jacob Brown, Martha who married John Lewis, 
Rachel, and another who married John Rouse. 

Thomas Moor is unknown. Of Joseph Beal no other record 
is found. Edward Beal is found in the next generation at Ports- 
mouth, and Arthur Beal was at the same time of York, Maine. 

Hugh James is unknown. William James was in Kittery 
about 1650 and then sold land to John Diamond. 

Alexander Jones, born in 161 5, was the first owner of the 
land where now is the village of Kittery. He sold to William 
James. He was of Portsmouth in 1657 and of the Isles of Shoals 
in 1661. He perhaps married Mary, daughter of Thomas Wal- 
ford. Children were probably Sarah, Samuel, John, and Alex- 

John Ault, born in 1601, lived at Oyster River Point 1645- 
1679. K^ ^'^^ wife Remembrance, who came over about 1638. 
Children were John, Remembrance who married John Rand, and 
Rebecca who married Thomas Edgerly. The two last lived at 
Oyster River Point. 

William Bracket is unknown, perhaps an error for Anthony 
Bracket, a settler in Portsmouth before 1640, whose descendants 
are well known. 

James Newt, or Nute. lived on Back River in Dover. He 
was alive in 1691. He signed the Dover Combination in 1640. 
Children were James and Abraham, whose descendants are 

Thus we have passed in review the company of men who 
are said to have been servants of John Mason, though the ac- 
curacy of the list may be distrusted, and apparently Thomas 
Walford and William Seavey did not come over as his servants. 
These were among the earliest settlers of New Hampshire, and 
certainly their families grew up with the country. They helped 
largely to make the State what it now is. Their labors and their 
spirit contributed to its prosperity and drew other settlers to 
join them. The town of Newbury, Mass., has erected a granite 
shaft on the old village green near the mouth of Parker River, 
with the names thereon of the first settlers ; somewhere in 
Portsmouth there should be a similar memorial, while at Hilton's 
Point should be erected a monument to the first permanent settler 
of New Hampshire, Edward Hilton. 


In 1635 the Council of New England was dissolved. Its 
work had been careless and the occasion of many conflicting 
claims. It aimed to monopolize the natural resources of New 
England and to distribute them to a favored few. Gorges was 
accused of the desire to monopolize sunshine and air, in order 
that he alone might cure fish. Mason, probably foreseeing the 
discontinuance of this corporation, leased, April 18, 1635, to his 
brother-in-law, John WoUaston, all his possessions lying between 
the Naumkeag and Pascataqua rivers, which WoUaston promptly 
transferred back to Mason, June 11, 1635, after the dissolution 
of the aforesaid Council. Under date of April 22, 1635, there are 
two grants to Mason, confirmations of his claim to the lands 
between the Naumkeag and the Pascataqua, together with a 
grant of ten thousand acres lying southeast of the mouth of the 
Sagadahock, or Kennebec, river, the latter to be called Masonia. 
The heirs of Mason never made any claim to this grant. The 
difference between the two grants of the same date is verbal to 
a slight extent, and, moreover, the power of government is in- 
cluded in one of the grants, "with ye power of Judicature in 
all causes and matters whatsoever as well criminal capitall & 
civill ariseing or which may hereafter arise within ye limits 
bounds & precincts aforesaid to be exercised and executed 
according to ye laws of England as near as can be by ye sd Capt. 
John Mason his heirs & assignes or his or their Deputies Lieu- 
tenants Judges Stewards or officers thereunto by him or them 
assigned deputed or appointed from time to time.''^'^ Little claim 
was ever made by the heirs of Mason based upon this clause, 
and judges decided that they had no power of government. The 
second grant also differs from the first in this respect, that Henry 
Jocelyn or Ambrose Gibbons was authorized to deliver posses- 
sion and seizin to Capt. John Mason or to his attorney. It was 
said that Jocelyn was on his way to make such delivery when he 
heard of the death of Mason and so desisted from his undertak- 
ing. An argument oft repeated in after years against the 
validity of Mason's claims was that no legal delivery of the 
lands had ever been made. 

To further strengthen his claim Capt. John Mason is said 

17 N. H. State Papers, Vol. XXIX, pp. 62-66. 


to have obtained a royal charter from King Charles I, dated 
August 19, 1635, although the authenticity of this charter is 
disputed. It confirms to him all the lands between the Naum- 
keag and the Pascataqua and sixty miles inland and the south 
half of the Isles of Shoals, to be called New Hampshire, and 
the ten thousand acres near the mouth of the Sagadahock river, 
to be called Masonia. The asserted charter confers legal rights 
upon Mason and makes him true and absolute lord and pro- 
prietor, subject only to the laws of England and allegiance to 
the king. He had power to make laws with the consent of the 
freeholders and in emergencies without consulting with them. 
He also was given power to appoint judges, justices and 
magistrates, to use martial law in case of rebellion, to confer 
titles of honor, to raise troops and transport arms and munitions 
of war, to build forts, to collect tolls and taxes, to erect Courts 
Baron, and to give titles to estates sold. Such extensive powers 
were not granted to other proprietors. The charter was not 
recorded in England. In the Masonian claims it was not pro- 
duced as evidence. In opposition to the powers conferred in 
this charter in later litigation all powers of government were 
disclaimed or denied. It seems, then, that objections to the 
genuineness of this royal charter are well founded.^^ A letter 
from George Vaughan to Ambrose Gibbons, dated London, 
April 10, 1636, says that if Mason had lived he would have taken 
a patent from the king. Perhaps the royal charter was drawn 
up in desired form and never executed ; perhaps it was a bold 
forgery, like the Wheelwright deed. 

Capt. John Mason was the son of John Mason of King's 
Lynn, county Norfolk, England, who married Isabel Steed. He 
was baptized December 14, 1586. There is some evidence that he 
was for a time a student at the University of Oxford. He be- 
came a captain in the English navy and governor of Newfound- 
land, where he remained about six years, making a survey and 
map of the island. In 1626 he was made treasurer and pay- 
master of the English armies employed in the wars with France 
and Spain. In 1634 he was appointed captain of the South Sea 
Castle, at Portsmouth, England. When Sir Ferdinando Gorges 

18 N. H. State Papers, Vol. XXIX, pp. 69-85. Cf . notes by John Farmer 
to BeWcnap's History of New Hampshire, pp. 14, 15. 


was governor of New England, Mason was chosen vice-admiral. 
All these offices show that he was highly esteemed and a man 
of executive ability. He spent a small fortune in his planta- 
tions at Newichawannock and Strawberry Bank. His purpose 
was lofty and his faith in the future development and growth 
of the American colonies was great. The state of New Hamp- 
shire owes much to him, who gave to her a name and a founda- 
tion. He was a churchman and therefore was not in favor with 
Gov, John Winthrop and other authorities of Massachusetts 
Bay, but he was as wise, able, patriotic and unselfish as any of 
the founders of the rival colony. His death in December, 1635, 
put an end to his endeavors for the upbuilding of his cherished 
plantations. In his will he names "the Mannor of Mason Hall" 
as though it included all New Hampshire. In that will he be- 
queathed a thousand acres to support a church and another 
thousand to maintain a free Grammar School, where they might 
be suitably located in New Hampshire. The bulk of his prop- 
erty and all his claim to New Hampshire descended to his grand- 
son, Robert Tufton, on condition that he should take the sur- 
name Mason. The condition was complied with and thus were 
founded legal claims to an extensive province, which occasioned 
law suits throughout a century. 

Chapter II 

chapter II 

Forged Letter — Division of Mason's Goods — Governor Francis Williams- 
Combination at Strawberry Bank — Granting of the Glebe — Earliest 
Records Destroyed — Towns Without a Charter — Episcopalians in Ports- 
mouth — Early Officials — Settlement at Hilton's Point — Capt. Thomas 
Wigg^in and Company on Dover Neck — First Church in Northam — Capt. 
John Underbill — Dover Combination — Limits of Ancient Dover — First 
Mills — Church at Oyster River — Leading Men of Dover — The Wheel- 
wright Deed a Forgery — Settlement of Exeter — Sketch of Rev. Joha 
Wheelwright — Exeter Combination — Wheelwright and Others Remove to 
Wells, Me. — Rev. Samuel Dudley — Later Division of Exeter — Settle- 
ment of Winnacunet or Hampton — The Bound House — Leaders in 
Hampton — Rev. Stephen Bachiler — Home Rule in the Four Towns. 

THERE is on record a letter, whose genuineness can not be 
admitted, purporting to have been written by Capt. Walter 
Neale and Capt. Thomas Wiggin to Capt. John Mason, dated at 
Northam, 13 August 1633, in which they say that they have 
received orders from the patentees "to make a division of those 
patents into four towns." Accordingly they make such a division, 
only reporting the fourth town, Exeter, as lying outside of 
Mason's grants. The other towns were Portsmouth, Dover 
and Hampton, names which were not in use till some years after 
the date of the so-called letter. Nevertheless the fabricator of 
this epistle, who wrote it many years later, displays considerable 
knowledge of the early history of New Hampshire and its leading 
men. There were four towns, and these comprised all the then 
known province or grant to Capt. John Mason. Each town has 
a somewhat distinct history. 

After the death of Mason, in 1635, his servants at Newicha- 
wannock and at Strawberry Bank, left without property to shift 
for themselves, scattered at their pleasure, divided Mason's 
movable goods among themselves, and took possession of any 
unoccupied land that pleased them, with silent consent of their 
neighbors. The mills fell into disuse and decay. The cattle, 
to the number of one hundred, were driven to Boston by Francis 
Norton and there sold. Thomas Wannerton lived in the Great 



House^ at Strawberry Bank till about 1644. when, according to 
deposition of Francis Small, he carried "quantities of goods and 
arms belonging unto Mason's Plantation and sold them unto 
the French that did inhabit Port Royal." The same year he 
lost his life in an attack upon a house on the Penobscot river. 
Henry Jocelyn acted as agent for widow Ann Mason for a short 
time, and in 1640 we read of one Francis Williams as governor 
of the colony at Strawberry Bank. It is probable that he was 
elected to that office by the inhabitants, who had some combina- 
tion for government perhaps as early as 1636, or immediately 
after the death of Mason, the same year that a court was first 
established and civil government commenced at Saco, in the 
province of Maine. The Rev. George Burdett, in a letter to 
the Archbishop of Canterbury, 29 November 1638, says that 
there was yet no government in Pascataqua, "none but combina- 
tions; because ye several patents upon ye river are thought to 
comprise no commission of jurisdiction." "The old combination 
at Strawberry Bank" is mentioned earlier than 1643. The his- 
torian Hubbard says that the people at Strawberry Bank entered 
into a combination for self-government soon after the departure 
of Capt. Walter Neale. which was in 1633. It is certain that 
there must have been some sort of a combination for government 
in 1640, for on the twenty-fifth of May of that year a grant of 
fifty acres of glebe land for the support of the ministry was 
signed by twenty persons. A chapel and parsonage already 
had been erected by the same persons. The signers were Francis 
Williams, Governor, Ambrose Gibbons, Assistant, William 
Jones, Renald Fernald, John Crowther, Anthony Bracket, 
Michael Chatterton, Jno. Wall, Robert Buddingson, Mathew Cole, 
Henry Sherburne. John Lander, Henry Taler, Jno. Jones, 
William Berry, Jno. Pichering, Jno. Billing, Jno. Wolton, 
Nicholas Row and William Palmer. 

Little can be learned about the first steps in local self- 
government at Strawberry Bank, because the first book of 
records has not been preserved. In the first book extant, under 
date of January 13, 1652, there is a record of the meeting of 
the selectmen at the house of George Walton, who kept an- 
ordinary on Great Island. "This night the select men exsamened 

1 See Appendix A. 

MMHB^^ Ol-<sl^*.-»^ Tot/UVl ^«M.«,W Jcr<A/ 

3. i^»va_a.>: Jdx^4, en/0 **«^C*4ZuL. 
•^'. «^<^-ak Witter M.<»<^»<-v'f t/4*-J/nJ., 



M A D J^ U A. 


I O T 




)/K I t\t 

'pouts MOt^W 

R V E 


rwcRr« hampto*?- 


H I* M P T O W 



J K I N G S T O Af ) , 










the ould Town booke and what was not aproued was crossed out, 
and what was aproued was left to be Recorded in this booke and to 
be confermed by the present select men." ~ From the old 
book were copied into the new one grants of land dated 
as early as 1645, showing that some form of town 
government then existed. The fact is that the first towns 
of New Hampshire, that is. Strawberry Bank and Northam, 
did not wait to receive a charter or to be incorporated 
before doing the business of a town. The first settlers acted 
on the principle later enunciated, that all government derives 
its authority from the consent of the governed. Human society 
can not exist without acknowledged customs, which soon become 
laws. The basal principles of law, with some of its precepts, 
the first settlers brought with them from England. New regu- 
lations had to be made to suit changed conditions, and these 
were made by common consent, or by majority vote of the 
settlers assembled. Thus the town meeting became the legisla- 
tive assembly. 

The nam'^, Strawberry Bank, arose from the abundance of 
strawberries found where the town first began. It was changed 
to Portsmouth by the General Court of Massachusetts, 28 May 
1653, in response to a petition signed by Brian Pendleton, 
Rich. Cutt, Renald Fernald, Samuel Haynes and John Sherburne, 
in behalf of the town. The petition reads thus, "Whereas the 
name of this plantation att present being Straberry banke 
accidentally soe called by reason of a banke where Straberries 
was found in this place. Now your petitioners Humble desire 
is to have it called Portsmouth, being a name most sutable 
for this place, it being the River's mouth and a good harbour 
as any in this land." ^ The petition states that there were fifty 
or sixty families at Strawberry Bank. 

The earliest inhabitants of Portsmouth were Episcopalians 
and as such chose Richard Gibson as their parson previous to 
the grant of the glebe, 1640. Gov. Winthrop says that he was 
"wholly addicted to the hierarchy and discipline of England 
and exercised his ministerial function" according to the ritual. 
Naturally he had no favor with the Puritans of Massachusetts 

2 Hackett's Portsmouth Records, p. 21. 
3N. H. Prov. Papers, Vol. I, p. 208. 


Bay. Gibson did marry and baptize as well as preach at the 
Isles of Shoals, which, in 1642, were found to be within the 
jurisidiction of Massachusetts. He also got into controversy 
with the Rev. Thomas Larkham of Dover, scandalizing the 
Massachusetts government, denying their title, etc. He was 
summoned to court in Boston, where he submitted and was 
discharged without punishment. He left the country soon after. 
This seems to have put an end to Episcopalianism in New 
Hampshire, for the next minister called was the Rev. James 
Parker from Weymouth, Mass. He, too, remained but a brief 
time, yet long enough to have a religious revival, wherein about 
forty confessed their sins. "Most of them fell back again in 
time, embracing this present world." Such is the comment of 
Gov. Winthrop. * 

The earliest records of Portsmouth are made up principally 
of grants of land, the inhabitants voting to themselves indi- 
vidually portions of land that had been granted to Capt. John 
Mason, and some of the same had been improved at his expense. 
About 1647 Richard Cutt is found in possession of the Great 
House. Soon after John Pickering and Ambrose Lane were 
running saw-mills, the latter on Sagamore Creek. Brian Pendle- 
ton was chosen commander of the Train Band in 1652. Ferries 
were established from the "Rendezvous," at Odiorne's Point, 
to the Great Island and the Great House, and from Sherburne's 
Point to the same places. There was also a ferry to Warehouse 
Point in Kittery, where the first houses in that town were built. 
William Seavey was treasurer of Strawberry Bank, succeeded 
by Henry Sherburne. Licenses were granted to sell wine for 
a small tax paid to the town, five shillings a hogshead for French 
wines. A fort was built upon the Great Island, commanding 
the mouth of the Pascataqua. Highways were laid out to 
Hampton and throughout the town. In 1656 a Mr. Browne was 
officiating in the pulpit, and in 1658 eighty-six persons sub- 
scribed for the ntaintenance of the minister. Thus the town 
grew by shipbuilding, trade in lumber and fish, and agriculture. 
Being the only seaport, its population quickly outgrew that of 
the other three towns. This fact and its location made it the 
capital or seat of government of the province in after years. 

* Journal, Vol. II, pp. 79, 93. 


John Pickering, Richard Cutt, Francis Champernowne, Henry- 
Sherburne, Brian Pendleton, Dr. Reginald Fernald and Samuel 
Haines were the leading men and officers of the town. 

The grant obtained by Edward Hilton of Hilton's Point 
was soon in the possession of a company of merchants of 
Bristol and Shrewsbury, England. Captain Thomas Wiggin 
came over in 1631 as agent of the Bristol company, and the 
town he founded on Dover Neck was first called Bristol, appear- 
ing as such on a map in 1634. Edward Howes wrote from 
.London to Gov. John Winthrop, March 25, 1633, "there are 
honest men about to buye out the Bristol men's plantation in 
Pascataqua and do propose to plant there 5CX) good people 
before Michelmas next. T. Wiggin is the chief agent therein." 
And again he wrote, June 22, 1633, "He intends to plant him- 
self and many gracious men there this summer. * * * I have and 
you all have cause to bless God that you have soe good a 
neighbour as Capt. Wiggin." Merchants of Bristol owned about 
two-thirds of the patent and merchants of Shrewberry owned 
the other third. After about two years the Bristol men sold 
their share to a company of lords and gentlemen, of whom 
Lord Say, Lord Brooke, Sir Richard Saltonstall, Sir Arthur 
Heselrigge, Mr. Willis, Mr. Whiting, Mr. Hewett or Hewell 
(perhaps Bosville) are named. The patent was divided into 
twenty-five shares, which were bought and sold as in modern 
land speculations. Thomas Wiggin continued to be the agent 
of this company. After a visit to England he returned in the 
ship James, arriving at Salem, Massachusetts, October 10, 1633. 
Winthrop says that he brought with him "about thirty with 
one Mr. Leverich, a godly minister to Pascataquack." The 
names of some of those who came with Wiggin have been 
gathered from various sources. Among his companions we may 
safely mention Elder Hatevil Nutter, Richard Pinkham, Thomas 
Leighton, Richard York, William Williams, William Beard, 
Thomas Stevenson. Samuel Haines, John Heard, John Dam, 
George Webb, Philip Chesley, William Pomfret, William Storer, 
Henry Tibbetts, George Walton, William Furber, and the Rev. 
William Leveridge, above mentioned. At least all these lived 
on Dover Neck within a few years of Capt. Wiggin's second 
arrival, and they were joined, not long after, by Anthony Emery 


from Newbury, Mass., Joseph Austin from Hampton, John 
Tuttle, who came in the Angel Gabriel and was wrecked off 
Pemaquid, Job Clement from Haverhill, Mass., Ralph Hall, John 
Hall, Philip Cromwell, Capt. John Underbill and the Rev. John 
Reyner. ^ 

It was the design of Capt. Thomas Wiggin to found a city 
or compact town on Dover Neck, about one mile north from 
Hilton's Point. Old deeds mention High street and Low street 
and Dirty Lane. The location was ideal, commanding a view 
for many miles around. Each settler had a home lot of three 
or four acres, while out lots, or farms, were assigned by common 
consent on the shores of Back River and other streams, easily 
reached by boat. Soon a meeting house was erected on Low 
street, to be succeeded by a larger one on High street in 
1654, used after 1675 as a fortification. Its foundations are well 
marked and preserved. Not many of the above named 
settlers lived long upon Dover Neck. Broader acres and better 
soil were easily found along the rivers and bays, the property 
of those who got there first. Land was bought of the Indians 
as early as 1635, according to the testimony of John Ault and 
Richard York, although no deed of the same is on record. It 
reached down to Lamprey river, long the disputed boundary 
between Dover and Exeter. ^ 

The Rev. William Leverich, or Leveridge, remained about 
two years and was then forced to seek a field that promised a 
better support. The settlers were really too poor to maintain 
a minister. After his departure came one George Burdett, in 
1637, and by vote of some combination for government was 
chosen governor in place of Capt. Thomas Wiggin. On account 
of some misdemeanors and unfavorable criticism of the Massa- 
chusetts government in correspondence with Archbishop Laud 
he removed to Agamenticus, now York, Maine, where he secured 
favor for a little time, till his villainy was discovered. He was 
convicted in court of adultery and was obliged to return to 
England and obscurity. 

He was succeeded by the Rev. Hansard Knollys, who on his 

5 Dr. Quint's First Parish in Dover and Stackoole's Hist, of Durham, 
N. H., p. 5. 

6N. H. Prov. Papers, Vol. I, p. 204. 


arrival in December, 1638, organized the first church in Dover. 
He remained about three years and then returned to England, 
where he became a Baptist, suffered various persecutions and 
died at the age of ninety-tliree. He was reputed as a man of 
piety, courage and learning, author of twelve books, versed in 
Latin, Greek and Hebrew. It was just before his pastorate that 
Capt. John Underbill, having been cast out by Massachusetts, 
came to Dover Neck and succeeded in getting himself chosen as 
governor,'^ which was interpreted by the government of the 
Bay Colony as an unfriendly act. He had been a soldier in 
the Netherlands and had served acceptably as an officer in 
the Pequod war, also as a deputy to the General Court in Boston. 
But Underbill at Dover was in too small a field for the full 
exercise of his turbulent spirit. He attempted more than he 
could perform. The Rev. Thomas Larkham had been called 
as assistant to Mr. Knollys, and the two ministers did not agree 
on some small points of doctrine and practice. Dr. Belknap's 
manuscript church records contain the following bit of ecclesi- 
astical comedy : "The more religious sort adhering to Mr. 
Knollys, he in their name excommunicated Mr. Larkham, who 
in turn laid violent hands on Knollys, taking the hat from his 
head, pretending it was not paid for, but he was so civil as to 
send it back to him again. In this heat it began to grow to a 
tumult, and some of the magistrates joined with Mr. Larkham 
and assembled in company to fetch Capt. Underbill before the 
court. He also gathered some of their neighbors together to 
defend themselves and keep the peace, and so marched out to 
meet Mr. Larkham, one carrying a Bible on a halbud for an 
ensign, Mr. Knollys being armed with a pistol. When Mr. 
Larkham saw them thus provided, he withdrew his party and 
went no farther, but sent down to Mr. Williams, Governor of 
Strawberry Bank, for assistance, who came up with a company 
of armed men and beset Mr. Knollys's house, where Capt. Under- 
bill was, kept a guard upon him night and day till they could 
call a court, and then, Mr. Williams sitting as judge, they found 
Underbill and his company guilty of riot and set great fines 
upon them and ordered him and some others to depart out of 

7 Sept. 6, 1638. "Mr. John Underbill is banished to go out of this 
jurisdiction within 14 days & not to returne any more." — Records of Mass.,. 
Vol. I, p. 237. 


the Plantation. ^ Soon after Underbill made public confession 
in Boston of bis many sins, "witb many deep sigbs and abund- 
ance of tears," and Mr. Larkbam left Dover in 1641, returning 
to England. He bad been settled at Nortbam, near Barnstaple, 
before coming to New England, and so it was probably tbrough 
his influence that the name of Bristol, first given to Dover, was 
changed to Nortbam. This name did not stick long to the 
settlement. Perhaps some scandalous rumors about Mr. Lark- 
ham induced the people to adopt the name Dover for their 
township, in the year 1642, a name that for many years included 
not only the present town of Dover, but also Durham, Lee, 
Madbury, Rollinsford, Somersworth, and parts of Rochester and 

We have recited above a curious instance of peaceable 
intervention. Perhaps because neither Strawberry Bank nor 
Nortbam alias Dover was an incorporated or chartered town 
and local combinations were only friendly neighbors in a region 
called as a whole Pascataquack, the aid of "Governor" Williams 
and his supporters was called in to quell a riot. It was a military 
necessity. The trial was very like that conducted by a drum- 
head court martial. There was no claim of jurisdiction on the 
part of Strawberry Bank. In a similar spirit Capt. Thomas 
Wiggin had before appealed to Massachusetts to try certain 
offenders whom he had no power to try or to punish, yet the 
authorities in Massachusetts wanted jurisdiction acknowledged 
before they complied with Captain Wiggin's request. Governor 
Williams had more sense and less ambition. 

The succeeding ministers of Dover, Daniel Maud, 1643-55, 
John Reyner, 1655-69, John Reyner, Jr., 1669-76, and John Pike, 
1678-1709, were all men of scholarship and piety, graduates of 
Cambridge University, England, or of Harvard College. They 
rendered noble service and built up a church that has been the 
mother of many others, although the meeting house at Dover 
Neck long since disappeared. 

We have seen that the men of Dover collectively bought 
land of the Indians in 1635. Soon after that date they elected 
their governor, but what powers were conferred upon him can 
not now be told. They granted land before the year 1640 to 

8 Historical Memoranda of Ancient Dover, p. 29. 



several men at Oyster River, where Darby Field was in quiet 
possession of the "Point" earlier than 1639. Thus town business 
was transacted before there was any formal combination for 
government. In the Record Office at London has been pre- 
served the original of a Combination of "Inhabitants upon the 
river Pascataquack," and since it is known that all the signers 
were men of Dover, it has been called, somewhat inaptly, 
Dover's Magna Charta. The document reads as follows : — 

Whereas sundry mischeifes and inconveniences have befaln us, and 
more and greater may in regard of want of civill Government, his Gratious 
Ma'tie having hitherto setled no order for us to our knowledge : 

Wee whose names are underwritten being Inhabitants upon the river 
Pascataquack have voluntarily agreed to combine ourselves into a body 
politique that we may the more comfortably enjoy the benefit of his 
Ma'ties Lawes together with all such Orders as shal bee concluded by a 
major part of the Freemen of our Society in case they bee not repugnant to 
the Lawes of England and administered in the behalf of his Majesty. 

And this we have mutually promised and concluded to do and so to 
continue till his Excellent Ma'tie shall give other Order concerning us. In 
witness whereof wee have hereto set our hands the two and twentieth day 
of October in the sixteenth yeare of our Soverign Lord Charles by the grace 
of God King of Great Britain France and Ireland Defender of the Faith &c. 
Annoq Dom. 1640. 

John Follet 
Robert Nanney 
William Jones 
Phillip Swaddon 
Richard Pinkhame 
Bartholomew Hunt 
William Bowden 
John Wastill 
John Heard 
John Hall 
Abel Camond 
Henry Beck 
Robert Huggins 
Fran : Champernoon 
Hansed Knowles 
Edward Colcord 
Henry Lahorn 
Edward Starr 
Anthony Emery 
William Pomfret 
George Webb^ 

Thom. Larkham 
Richard Waldern 
William Waldern 
William Storer 
William Furber 
Thos. Layton 
Tho. Roberts 
Bartholomew Smith 
Samuel Haines 
John Underhill 
Peter Garland 
John Dam 
Stephen Teddar 
John Ugroufe 
Thomas Canning 
John Phillips 
Tho : Dunstar 
James Nute 
Richard Laham 
John Cross 
James Rollins 



Some clerical errors are manifest in this list of signers. 
Edward Starr is doubtless Elder Edward Starbuck, Tho : 
Dunstar is probably Thomas Dustin, afterward of Kittery, 
whose son, Thomas Dustin, settled in Haverhill, Massachusetts. 
Thomas Canning- should be Thomas Canney. Henry Lahorn 
is probably Henry Langstaff. Hansed Knowles is the Rev. 
Hansard Knollys. Robert Huggins is Robert Huckins of Oyster 
River. A few names in this list are otherwise unknown in 
history. It is noticeable that some, like Champernowne and 
Furber, signed this combination, although they lived on the 
south side of Great and Little Bays, then reckoned as a part of 
Hilton's purchase and so belonging to Dover. On the other 
hand Darby Field, Ambrose Gibbons, Thomas Stevenson, 
William Williams and probably others then living on the south 
side of Oyster River, in what is now Durham, did not sign the 
combination, since it was then unsettled whether they were 
living in Northam (Dover) or in Exeter. 

Doubtless this Combination, from the year 1640 onward, 
was an unchartered town and did all the business of a town 
assessing taxes. This was first done on the seventeenth day of 
September, 1647, when it was "ordered concluded and agreed 
upon that the inhabitants of Dover should condescend unto a 
form of levying rates and assessments for raising of public 
charges according to an order of court made and held at Boston." 
William Pomfret was then the recorder, or town clerk. Before 
this date funds for the maintenance of the ministry and for 
other expenses may have been raised by voluntary contribu- 
tions. The rate-list shows fifty-three families in the town, 
twenty-three of whom lived in Oyster River Plantation. The 
other settlements were on Dover Neck, about the falls at 
Cochecho, and along Back River, with a few frontiersmen. The 
bounds of the town, as determined by commissioners in 1652, 
were on the southwest Goddard's Creek and thence to the first 
fall in Lamprey River, at the present village of Newmarket, 
and thence six miles on a west by northwest line. On the north 
the boundary line ran from the first fall in the Newichawannock 
four miles on a north by west line. On the south the line 
ran from a creek below Thomas Canney's house, on the 
Pascataqua, to Hogsty Cove near the mouth of Great Bay, 


together with the marsh and meadow bordering on Great Bay 
with convenient by land to set their hay. ^ 

The rent of mill sites with privilege of cutting timber on 
lands adjacent helped to pay the minister's salary. The prin- 
cipal mill-owners were Richard Waldern at Cochecho, Valentine 
Hill at Oyster River Falls, and Thomas Wiggin and Simon 
Bradstreet at Quamphegan, where later the Broughtons were 
owners and managers. Gradually a score or more of small 
waterfalls were utilized for sawing of boards, shingles and ship 
timber. Most of those ancient sawmills long ago fell into decay, 
the streams having dried up in summer in consequence of 
cutting off the forests, and the power being too little for modern 
machinery. All the mills in 1653 should have yielded an in- 
come of one hundred and twenty-five pounds for the support of 
public worship. The ministerial tax could be paid in money, 
beaver, beef, pork, wheat, peas, malt, butter, or cheese, at estab- 
lished prices. A church and parsonage were erected at Oyster 
River in 1656, about half way between the Falls and the Point, 
and in 1665 ^^^ Rev. Joseph Hull was preaching there, succeeded 
after a lapse of time by the Rev. John Buss, who served many 
years both as minister and physician. 

Conspicuous among the first settlers of ancient Dover were 
Captain Thomas Wiggin, leader and governor of the colony 
on Dover Neck, who later settled in what is now Stratham, 
became one of the early judges and founded an extensive and 
well known family ; Thomas Roberts, who came with Edward 
Hilton in 1623, was chosen "President of the Court" in 1640, 
lived all his life on Dover Neck and died at a good and honored 
old age about 1674; Elder Hatevil Nutter, occasional preacher 
and holder of various town offices, whose cellar may be easily 
seen a few rods north of the site of the church on Dover Neck 
and on the opposite side of High Street ; Edward Starbuck, 
Elder in the church. Representative in the General Court, 
charged with heresy and so a man evidently of independent 
thought, finally settling in Nantucket, where he was the leading 
magistrate and an esteemed citizen ; William Pomfret, recorder, 
selectman, commissioner and lieutenant ; Richard Waldern, or 
Waldron, mill-owner at Cochecho, Major in the militia, Rep- 

S Mass. Archives, 112, 53. 


resentative to the General Court and Speaker for several years, 
and Associate Judge in old Norfolk County ; Captain Valentine 
Hill, who had been deacon in the church at Boston, builder of 
the first mill at Oyster River, Representative several times, 
whose house Was built about 1649 ^^^ is still in use. probably 
the oldest house in New Hampshire ; Darby Field, who first 
explored Mount Washington, in 1642, and brought back a 
description of the "Chrystal Hills"; Elder William Wentworth, 
prominent as an officer in the church and town and founder 
of one of the most distinguished families of New Hampshire; 
Francis Champernowne, who signed the Dover Combination of 
1640 then living on his farm called "Greenland," from which 
the present town of Greenland took its name. He was of an 
aristocratic family in Devonshire and nephew of the wife of 
Sir Ferdinando Gorges. He removed from Greenland to Kittery, 
Maine, where he was a leading citizen. A heap of stones marks 
his lonely grave. ^^ 

The Wheelright Deed was a long time in controversy as 
to its genuineness. It is dated May 17, 1629, and conveys 
from four sagamores, Passaconaway of Penacook, Runawit of 
Pentucket, Wahangnonawit of Squamscot, and Rowls of 
Newichawannock, to the Rev. John Wheelwright, Augustin 
Story, Thomas Wite, William Wentworth. and Thomas Levitt, 
all of Massachusetts Bay, a great tract of land lying between 
the Newichawannock and Pascataqua rivers on the northeast 
and the Merrimack river on the south. 

To begin at Newchewanack ffalls in Piscataqua River aforesd and soe 
down sd River to the sea and soe up alongst the sea shore to Merrimack 
River, and soe up along sd River to the falls at Pentucett aforesd and from 
said Pentucet ffalls upon a North west line twenty English miles into the 
woods, and from thence to Run upon a Streight Line North East and South 
West till meete with the main Rivers that Runs down to Pentucket falls 
and Newchewanack ffalls and ye sd Rivers to be the bounds of sd Lands 
from the thwart Line or head Line to ye aforesd ffalls. 

The deed also included the Isles of Shoals. One condition 
was that the said John Wheelwright should begin a plantation 
at Squamscot falls within ten years with a company of English 
people. The deed is worded and spelled after the manner of 

10 See Tuttle's Historical Papers, pp. 63-124, and Stackpole's Old Kittery 
and Her Families. 


that time and is a very adroit forgery, so much so that it has 
deceived many and been admitted in courts of law. It is the 
legal basis on which rests the grant of several townships. It 
was registered in York County, Maine, in 1713, and in 1719 Col. 
John Wheelwright of Wells, Maine, sold a township, reciting 
this deed. It was the original township of Londonderry. 

The Hon. James Savage of Boston first elaborately exposed 
the forgery, and his opinion was endorsed by John Farmer, Esq., 
of Concord, New Hampshire. Other eminent men have defended 
the deed and none so fully and ably as the Hon. Charles H. 
Bell of Exeter, late Governor of New Hampshire. Yet he 
subsequently discovered that the Rev. John Wheelwright signed 
a transcript of the parish register of Bilsby, England, on the 
twenty-fifth of March, 1629, and therefore had not time to come 
to America and arrange for the purchase of this land about two 
months later. Moreover, the deed alleges that the grantees were 
all of Massachusetts Bay, which colony had no existence at 
that time. The deed is now an unquestioned forgery, and other 
documents in support of the deed must be pronounced forgeries 
also, as "The Four Towns Laid Out," dated August 13-20, 1633, 
(N. H. State Papers, Vol. XXIX, pp. 52-54) and the letter of George 
Vaughan to Ambrose Gibbons, dated August 20, 1634 (N. H. 
Prov. Papers, Vol. I, p. 95). The four towns named in the 
former document had no existence in the year 1629, viz., 
Northam, Portsmouth, Hampton and Exeter. ^^ 

The Rev. John Wheelwright, graduate of the University of 
Cambridge, was made vicar of Bilsby, co. Lincoln, April 2, 1623, 
succeeding the Rev. Thomas Storre, whose daughter, Marie, 
he married in 1621. He himself was succeeded, January 11, 
1632, by the Rev. Philip de la Mott, upon presentation by the 
Crown, said presentation having escheated to the Crown "per 
pravitatem simoniae." The buying or selling of church prefer- 
ments was a crime in English law. The precise nature of Wheel- 
wright's offense is not known. He had the reputation in 
England and in several pastorates in New England of being an 
upright and godly man. i- He was not "Silenced for noncon- 
formity," nor for the utterance of Puritanical views. In April, 

51 Farmer's footnote to Belknap's Hist, of New Hampshire, p. 13. 
32 Proceedings of Mass. Hist. Society, Vol. VHI, pp. 505-517- 


1636, he embarked for Boston, landing on the twenty-sixth of 
May. He had married a second wife, Mary, daughter of Edward 
Hutchinson of Alford and sister of William Hutchinson, whose 
wife Anne so much disturbed the ecclesiastical peace of Boston 
by her sharp distinctions between the covenant of faith and the 
covenant of works. Mr. Wheelwright sympathized with her 
views and in his pulpit at Mount Wollaston preached what his 
opponents called Antinomianism, a word which in theological 
controversies then lightly concealed as many sins as later did 
the word Unitarianism and more recently the phrase Higher 
Criticism. Such words in the mouths of some persons express 
all manner of dangerous irreligion. Especially in a sermon on 
a fast day did Mr. Wheelwright intensify opposition, though 
it would be hard for a charitable and intelligent reader now to 
find in it anything objectionable. But the Puritans of Massa- 
chusetts Bay were determined to tolerate no opposition to their 
doctrines and church discipline. They had the truth, and all 
opponents were in dangerous error and must be silenced. They 
were willing to suffer martyrdom for freedom to worship God 
according to the dictates of conscience, the only way He can 
be worshipped, and they were also willing to make martyrs of 
others for a like adherence to conscientious convictions. Both 
parties mistook their own faulty reasonings for the voice of God 
within them. The outcome of the controversy was that Mr. 
Wheelwright was banished and of necessity was constrained to 
find an abode in some wilderness. So he went to the falls of 
the Squamscot, beyond, as he then supposed, the jurisdiction 
of Massachusetts, and took with him some who had been his 
parishioners at Bilsby and at Mount Wollaston, together with 
some sympathizers from Boston. These had been previously 
disarmed by order of the court, fearing some fanatical outbreak. 
Wheelwright spent the winter on the banks of the Squamscot. 
On the third day of April, 1638, he and others took two deeds 
from the sagamore Wehanownowit. In the first deed the 
grantees are John Wheelwright, Samuel Hutchinson and Augus- 
tine Stor of Boston, Edward Colcord and Darby Field of Pas- 
cataqua, John Compton of Roxbury and Nicholas Needham of 
Mount Wollaston ; in the second deed the grantees are only 
John Wheelwright of Pascataqua and Augustine Storr of 
Boston. In the first deed the witnesses are James Wall, James 


his marke, William Cole and Lawrence Cowpland ; in the second 
deed the witnesses are James Aspamabough, his marke, Edward 
Colcord, Nicholas Needham and William Furber, and the deed 
is signed by Wehanownowit and his son Pummadockyon. The 
first deed conveys land reaching from the Merrimack to Oyster 
River, bounded on the southeast by the patents of Pascataqua ; 
the second deed conveys a tract of land thirty miles square, 
"situate within three miles on the Northerne side of ye river 
Meremake extending thirty miles along by the river from the 
sea side, & from the sayd river side to Pischataqua patents thirty 
miles up into the countrey North West, & soe from the ffalls 
of Pischataqua to Oyster River thirty miles square ev'y way." 
The boundaries are not well stated in either deed. The second 
one is indorsed by the sagamore Watohantowet, April lo, 1639, 
and extends the northern boundary to one English mile on the 
east side of Oyster River. Apparently the second deed is an 
afterthought and though dated the same day as the first was 
not drawn up and executed till later. Suspicion is awakened 
whether this second deed is genuine. Why is it made to only 
John Wheelwright and his brother-in-law, Augustine Storr, 
while five other names of grantees in the first deed are omitted? 
Why is it made to include Winnacunnet, or Hampton, except for 
the purpose of laying a basis for a claim to that tract of land, 
which claim was made the following year by Wheelwright 
against the claim of Massachusetts? Why so careful to state 
in the second deed the limit of the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, 
three miles north of the Merrimack? These are afterthoughts 
that could hardly have occurred to John Wheelwright the same 
day that he received the first deed. The fact that the so called 
Wheelwright deed of 1629 is now an admitted forgery may 
throw some light on this second deed of April 3, 1638.^^ 

A church was organized in Exeter the same year, December, 
1638, of persons dismissed from the church in Boston, to which 
some female members were added the following year. It was 
located on what was afterward called "Meeting House Hill." 

The name Exeter was given to the town and on the fourth 
day of the fifth month, 1639, it formed a combination for govern- 
ment, a democratic republic, without authority from outside, 
subject only to God and the King of England: 

13 See Appendix B. 


Whereas it hath pleased the lord to moue the heart of our Dread 
Soveraigne Charles, by the grace of God King of England, Scotland, France 
& Ireland, to grant license & liberty to sundry of his subjects to plant them- 
selves in the westerne partes of America : Wee, his loyall subjects, brethren 
of the church of Exeter, situate & lying upon the river of Piscataquacke, 
wth other inhabitants there, considering wth our selves the holy will of god 
and our owne necessity that we should not liue wthout wholesome lawes 
& ciuil governmet amongst us, of wch we are altogether destitute, doe in 
the name of Christ & in the sight of God combine our selves together to 
erect & set up amongst us such Government as shal be, to our best discerning, 
agreeable to the will of god; professing ourselves subjects to our Soveraigne 
Lord King Charles, according to the libertys of our English Colony of the 
Massachusetts & binding our sehes solemnely by the grace & helpe of christ 
& in his name & feare to submit our selves to such godly and christian laws 
as are established in the Realme of England to our best knowledge & to all 
other such lawes wch shall upon good grounds be made & inacted amongst 
us according to god, yt we may liue quietly & peaceably together in all 
godliness and harmony. 

Mon., 5th d. 4th, 1639. 

John Whelewright William Wenbourne 

Augustine Storre Thomas X Crawley 

Thomas Wight Chr. Helme 

William Wentworth Darby X Ffeild 

Henry Elkins Robert X Read 

George X Walton Edward Risk worth 

Samuell Walker Ffrancis X Mathews 

Thomas Pettit William X Coole 

Rallf Hall James X Walles 

Robert X Seward Thomas Levitt 

Richard Bulgar EIdmond Littlefeeld 

Christopher Lawson John X Crame 

George X Barlow Godfreye X Dearborne 

Richard Moris Philemon Pormott 

Nicholas Needham Thomas Wardell 

Thomas Wilson William X Wardell 

George X Ruobone Robert X Smith 
Henry Roby 

Of those who signed this Combination it is known that John 
Cram, Godfrey Dearborn, George Rabone or Haburne, Thomas 
Wight and William Wentworth came from Mr. Wheelwright's 
old parish in England, Bilsby, as also did Balthazar Willix, 
an early inhabitant of Exeter. Wentworth, Lawson and Helme 
were cousins, and they were related by marriage to Wheel- 
wright. Those in the above list who are indicated thus X made 


their mark. Darby Field and Francis Matthews were living at 
Oyster River Point, then claimed as a part of Exeter, i* 

The little colony grew rapidly. Wholesome laws regulated 
treatment of the Indians, to whom it was prohibited to sell 
weapons, powder and fire-water. A local court was established, 
and justice and fraternity were the guiding principles. Two 
political parties quickly arose. Those especially who came later 
than 1639 were in favor of union with Masschusetts, and in the 
petition to that effect only three signed it who were of the 
original Combination. In consequence of the union of New 
Hampshire with Massachusetts Mr. Wheelwright and some of 
his trusty followers left Exeter and made a settlement in Wells, 
Maine. Among those who accompanied him in the spring of 
1643 were Edward Rishworth and Edmond Littlefield. Not long 
afterward Mr. Wheelwright made peace with the government of 
Massachusetts and was permitted to return to that colony. He 
served as pastor of the churches at Hampton and Salisbury with 
unusual acceptability, meanwhile making an extended visit to 
his old home in England and publishing some vindication of 
himself. He was familiarly acquainted with Oliver Cromwell 
and Sir Henry Vane. He died of apoplexy, November 15, 1679, 
at the age of eighty-seven, and was buried in the graveyard in 
the east village of Salisbury, Massachusetts. History must 
rank him among the wise, courageous and forceful leaders in 
the earliest colonization of New England. 

After the departure of the Rev. John Wheelwright from 
Exeter a call was extended to the Rev. Stephen Bachiler, who 
had been dismissed from Hampton, but the General Court of 
Massachusetts told the people of Exeter in substance that 
because of divisions among them they were not fit to establish 
a church and select a minister, counseling delay. The Rev. 
Thomas Rashleigh officiated as minister about one year and it 
is probable that for some time Elder Hatevil Nutter went over 
regularly from Dover Neck to conduct religious services at 
Exeter. In 1650 the Rev. Samuel Dudley, son of Gov. Thomas 
Dudley of Massachusetts, was installed as minister at Exeter, 
where he remained many years and by three marriages was the 
father of fifteen children. 

1* N. E. Reg. for IQ14, pp. 64-80, and Wentworth Genealogy, Vol. I, pp. 


It is worthy of notice that Exeter differed from the other 
towns of early New Hampshire in this, that it was as distinctly 
a religious community at the beginning as was the Mayflower 
colony at Plymouth. The first settlers went to the falls of the 
Squamscot because of religious convictions. They were actu- 
ally driven out of Boston and vicinity in the same spirit in 
which Baptists and Quakers were persecuted later. The oaths 
taken by the Elders and the people in 1639 at Exeter, in which 
they solemnly pledge themselves to live in accordance with the 
will and word of God, ministering justice to workers of iniquity 
and lending encouragement to well doers, with no restrictions 
as to what creeds men might adopt or what forms of worship 
they should maintain, indicate a liberality little known and prac- 
ticed in Massachusetts at that time. The hardships of persecu- 
tion were too fresh in their memories to allow them to become 
persecutors of others. The oath taken by the people was as 
follows : — 

Wee doe here sweare by the Great and dreadful name of ye high God, 
maker & Governr of Heaven & earth and by the Lord Jesus Xt ye King & 
Savior of his people that in his name and fear we will submit ourselves to 
be ruld & governed according to the will and word of God and such 
holsome Laws & ordinances as shall be derived theire from by our honrd 
Rulers and ye LawfuU assistance with the consent of ye people and yt we 
will be ready to assist them by the help of God in the administracon of 
Justice and prservacon of peace with our bodys and goods and best en- 
deavors according to God, so God protect & saue us and ours in Christ Jesus. 

Here is an infant Christian democracy, based upon the 
teachings of the Bible. The very first settlers of Exeter seem 
to have been of one heart and mind. Only a few years later 
dissensions arose, perhaps because other settlers had come in 
who were of a different spirit and some of the original leaders 
had gone elsewhere, perhaps because the lust for land and 
wealth can change the character of a community in a very short 
time, making them grasping, uncharitable, and sticklers for 
religious creeds and forms. The same thing happened among 
the Puritans of Massachusetts, and this sort of history has been 
repeating itself from the beginning. The church that has 
become rich and powerful and feels that it alone has the whole 
truth and is in need of nothing usually lacks about everything 
that pertains to a true Christian church. Material gains are 
placed above the freedom of the human spirit. 


Like all the original townships the territory of Exeter was 
too large for the convenience of its inhabitants, when the town 
came to be widely and thickly populated. First the Squamscot 
Patent, that had been rated with Hampton and then with Exeter, 
became a town in 1716, under the name of Stratham. New- 
market was severed in 1727, from which South Newmarket was 
later divided. Epping was taken from Exeter in 1741, and 
Brentwood in 1742, from which the western part was divided 
in 1764 under the name of Poplin, changed in 1854 to Fremont. 

Exeter had considerably more than one hundred families 
before 1680, and some of them have been prominent in the 
history of the town. Oilman, Dudley, Wadleigh, Folsom, Hall, 
Gordon, Ladd, Robinson, Thing, are names of families well 
known, all of which have furnished honored representatives. 

The General Court of Massachusetts, under date of March 
3, 1638, passed the following order, "That there shall be a 
plantacon setled at Wenicunnett & that Mr. Dummer & Mr. 
John Spencer shall have power to presse men to builde a house 
forthwith, in some convenient place, & what money they lay 
out aboute it shall be repaide them againe out of the tresury, 
or by those that come to inhabit there." Accordingly a house was 
built, probably within the limits of the present town of Sea- 
brook, "three large miles" north of the Merrimack river. This 
was afterward called the Bound House, and it was asserted that 
at that time Massachusetts claimed only to that limit, but the 
above cited record shows that the house was erected only as 
a mark of possession of Winnacunnet, for Massachusetts before 
that date had set up a claim for all the land covered by Mason's 
patents. The Bound House ^^ was never intended as a boundary 
mark between New Hampshire and Massachusetts. They who 
wanted to establish such a divisional line gave the name to the 
house. It is said to have been built by Nicholas Easton, who 
later removed to Newport and built the first house there and 
became governor of Rhode Island. In September, 1638, the 
Court granted permission to begin a settlement at Winnacunnet 
to the following petitioners, viz., Rev, Stephen Bachiler, Chris- 
is "Asa W. Brown of Kensington, who has spent a great deal of time in 
looking up the early history of this section, located it on the high ground 
about fifty rods northwest from the old Perkins tide mill." — Hazlett's Hist, 
of Rockingham County, p. 473. 


topher Hussey, widow Mary Hussey, Thomas Cromwell, Samuel 
Skullard, John Osgood, John Crosse, Samuel Greenfield, John 
Moulton, Thomas Moulton, William Estow, William Palmer, 
William Sergant, Richard Swayne, William Sanders, Robert 
Tuck and diverse others. The settlers went by shallop and 
begun the settlement October 14, 1638. The following year the 
Rev. Timothy Dalton became associate pastor with the Rev. 
Stephen Bachiler, and Winnacunnet was granted town privi- 
leges, or incorporated. The next year the Indian name was 
given up and Hampton became the name of the town, suggested, 
it is thought, by Mr. Bachiler. The people of Exeter protested 
in vain against this encroachment upon lands they had bought 
of the sagamores. The Court at Boston ruled that Indians could 
sell only lands that they had improved, and that Massachusetts 
had begun a settlement at Winnacunnet before Wheelwright and 
his company went to Exeter. No practical difficulties arose, 
and the relations between the two towns were friendly. Small 
lots of ten acres and less were granted to the first settlers, 
around the meeting house green and along the road therefrom 
to the landing on Hampton river. These were home lots, and 
farms of many acres were allotted here and there as need and 
merit demanded. The two ministers had three hundred acres 
apiece. John Cross and John Moulton, the two first representa- 
tives to the General Court, had two hundred and fifty acres 
apiece, and Christopher Hussey, son-in-law of Mr. Bachiler, had 
the same number. These, then, were the big men of the town. 
To him that hath shall be given. The town stretched along the 
coast from Colchester, the earliest name of Salisbury, to the 
southern part of Pascataqua, now known as Rye, and inland 
about thirty miles. Its original limits included the present towns 
of Hampton, North Hampton, Hampton Falls, a part of Seabrook, 
Kingston, East Kingston, Kensington, Danville, and a part of San- 
down. The towns of Newton and South Hampton afterward 
came within the limits of Hampton, when the line was fixed 
between New Hampshire and Massachusetts. 

The Rev. Stephen Bachiler deserves notice as the founder 
of this town. He was born in England about 1561, went to 
Holland as a dissenter, came to Boston in 1632 and settled at 
Lynn as minister. He was the minister at Hampton from 1638 
vto 1641, when he was excommunicated from the church, but he 


was restored two years later. We have noticed his call to 
Exeter at this time. He went to live at Portsmouth in 1647 
and a few years later sailed for England, where he died at the 
age of one hundred. He was thrice married, his last wife, 
Mary, being widow of Robert Beadle of Kittery, Maine. He 
sued for divorce from her and failed to obtain it. She later 
got divorced from him and married Thomas Turner. Several 
children were born to him in England, and their descendants 
are many in America, but his daughter by his third marriage, 
Mary, who married William Richards of Portsmouth, has been 
overlooked in the genealogy of his descendants. He was evi- 
dently a man of learning, leadership and popular gifts as a 
minister. To found a town in a wilderness requires greater 
abilities than to sit idly on an inherited throne. ^^ 

The settlers of the first four towns believed emphatically in 
home rule. Their Combinations were mutual consents to self- 
government. They were in effect little democratic republics, 
electing their own rulers and making their own laws. They 
were guided by the known laws and customs of England, 
adapted to new conditions. In their legislation they tried to 
express what seemed to the majority to be right. Nothing was 
done arbitrarily and in the spirit of tyranny. Yet their power 
was limited and some bold spirits defied their authority. They 
feared to try capital cases and appealed to Massachusetts to 
punish some offenders. At least this was the case in Dover, 
although Captain Thomas Wiggin was politically a Puritan and 
leaned toward the jurisdiction of the Bay Colony. He may have 
taken this course as a step toward union therewith. It is certain 
that the authorities in Boston felt that they had a trustworthy 
friend in Captain Wiggin and that he would do all in his power 
to get their claims recognized. 

i<»Dow's Hist, of Hampton, the Bachiler Genealogy, and N. H. Probate 
Records. Vol. I, p. 141. 

Chapter III 


chapter III 


Boundary Line — Extravagant Claims of Massachusetts — Union under 
Puritan Rule — Early Magistrates — Appeal of the Discontented to Com- 
missioners — Some Desire Union with Maine — Humble Address of 
Massachusetts to the King — Report of Commissioners — Exclusiveness 
of the Puritans — Persecutions of Quakers — Their Doctrine of the Inner 
Light — Intolerance of Massachusetts — "Cursed Sect of Hereticks" — 
Major Waldern's Sentence of Quaker Women — Flogged at the Tail of 
a Cart — Rescued at Salisbury by Walter Barefoot — Quakeresses 
Dragged through Snow and Water — Alice Ambrose and Ann Coleman 
Invincible — Edward Wharton before Judge Wiggin — The Noble Army 
of Martyrs Found an Enduring Church — Norfolk County — Trials for 
Witchcraft — Scotchmen Sent by Oliver Cromwell from Dunbar and 
Worcester — Rev. Joshua Moody — Death of Capt. John Mason — Efforts 
of His Heirs to Sell the Province — Edward Randolph Hated by Massa- 
chusetts — Territorial Claims of the Puritans Disallowed — New Hamp- 
shire Free. 

JOHN WINTHROP wrote in his Journal, October ii, 1638, 
"Capt. Wiggin of Pascataquack wrote to the Governor, that 
one of his people had stabbed another and desired he might be 
tried in the Bay if the party died. The Governor answered 
that if Pascataquack lay within their limits (as it was supposed), 
they would try him." Thus early had the men of Massachusetts 
Bay begun to claim more than belonged to them. Their charter 
gave them all those lands "which lie and be within the space 
of three English miles to the northward of the said river, called 
Monomack, alias Merrimack, or to the northward of any and 
every part thereof." When this charter was given, March 4, 
1628-9, nobody doubted that the Merrimack river followed a 
west to east course. The grantees expected nothing more than 
the land that extended three miles to the north of the mouth of 
the river. When explorers learned that the Merrimack changed 
its course and ran far to the northward, avaricious land-grabbers 
and ambitious founders of a State saw an opportunity to enlarge 
their borders and gain extended territory. The claim grew till 
lands three miles north of the Merrimack came to mean all lands 



east of the Merrimack and also all lands west of the Merrimack, 
even to the Pacific ocean. No formal statement of their claim 
was made till the 31st of the 3rd month, 1652, when the General 
Court made this record, — "on Perusal of our charter it was this 
day voted by the whole Court, that the extent of the line is to 
be from the northermost part of ye River Merrimack & three 
miles more north, where it is to be found, be it an hundred 
miles, more or less, from the sea, & thence upon a streyght line 
east & west, to each sea, & this to be the true interpretation of 
the termes of the lymitt northward graunted in the patent." 
Accordingly Captain Simon Willard and Captain Edward John- 
son were appointed commissioners to determine the most north- 
erly part of the Merrimack. They employed John Sherman of 
Watertown and Jonathan Ince, a student in Harvard college, to 
make the survey. These went into the wilderness and found an 
outlet of Lake Winnepiseogee that flows into the Merrimack 
and selected a small island in the channel of the Weirs as the 
most northern part of the river, in latitude fifty-three degrees, 
forty minutes and twelve seconds. Here an inscribed rock has 
been found, called the Endicott Rock, having thereon the name 
of Governor John Endicott and the initials of the commissioners. 
A great blunder was made in not following up the other branch 
of the Merrimack and tracing the Pemigewasset up into the 
mountains of Franconia. Thus just as valid a claim could have been 
made to a greatly enlarged territory, but the wilderness was 
unexplored and the surveyors seemed satisfied with what could 
be easily reached. They determined the latitude August i, 1652. 
Two years later Samuel Andrews and Jonathan Clarke of Cam- 
bridge, Massachusetts, were commissioned to determine the 
eastern end of the imaginary line on the northern boundary, and 
on the thirteenth day of October, 1654, they found it on the 
northernmost point of Upper Clapboard Island, about a quarter 
of a mile from the mainland, in Casco Bay, about four or five 
miles to the northward of Mr. Mackworth's house. ^ 

We have seen that the government of Massachusetts had 
already claimed and settled Hampton under this interpretation 
of their charter and had also claimed Exeter and thereby driven 
Mr. Wheelwright and some of his followers out of that town, 

1 Records of Mass., Vol. Ill, pp. 274, 362. 


after they had bought it of sagamores and settled in it. The 
commissioners of 1652 and 1654 swept in all of New Hampshire 
then known and nearly all of the settled portions of Maine, 
which at that time they were persuading to voluntarily submit 
to their government, whereas their charter gave them no power 
to extend their jurisdiction even at the request of towns or 
combinations of settlers. It seems as though from the very 
beginning the leaders in Massachusetts were planning an exten 
sive and independent dominion, under the forms of a republic 
and the virtual control of a religious aristocracy. The hope and 
plan of the General Court are but lightly concealed in the follow- 
ing record, dated March 13, 1638-9, "Ordered that letters should 
be written to Capt. Wiggin, Capt. Champernowne, Mr. Williams, 
Mr. Edward Hilton, Mr. Treworthy & their neighbors, and Mr. 
Bartholomew to carry the same & have instructions." These 
were the leading men of Dover, Strawberry Bank and Exeter. - 
In 1639 a committee from Dover was sent to the General 
Court at Boston, proposing that Dover come under the juris- 
diction of Massachusetts. In fact the record says that there 
were three committees from Dover. It was the time when there 
were as many parties squabbling about affairs of town and 
church. The offer of these committees was eagerly accepted, 
and on the fifth of November the Deputy Governor, Emmanuel 
Downing and Captain Edmond Gibbons were appointed a com- 
mittee to treat with the men from Dover, with whom they did 
agree. After a year or more of agitation the patentees, who had 
bought out the men of Bristol and had held the so called Squam- 
scot Patent ten years, transferred their rights, or "passed a grant" 
of Dover and other tracts of land upon the river Pascataqua to 
the General Court, "to be forever annexed to this jurisdiction." 
This was done because the inhabitants residing within the limits 
of said grant had complained repeatedly "of the want of some 
good government amongst them and desired some help in this 
particular from the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Bay, 
whereby they may be ruled and ordered according unto God 
both in church and commonweal, and for the avoiding such 
insufferable disorders whereby God hath been much dishonored 
amongst us." This reads as though the sole intent of the parties 

2 Records of Mass., Vol. I, p. 254. 


seeking this union were the greater glory of God and the bles- 
sings of firm and stable government. The longing for territorial 
enlargement is not mentioned, nor the Puritan's desire of rule. 
The gentlemen who made the transfer were George Willis, 
Robert Saltonstall, William Whiting, Edward HoUiock, and 
Thomas Makepeace. These acted in behalf of the rest of the 
patentees. They transferred only the "power of jurisdiction or 
government," and they had no such power to transfer, for the 
courts of England afterward decided that the lands had been 
granted to Captain John Mason and that he and his heirs had no 
power of jurisdiction. The agreement was that the inhabitants 
on the Pascataqua should be ruled and ordered and have such 
liberties as other freemen of the Massachusetts government, and 
that they should have a court of justice with the same power as 
the courts at Salem and Ipswich had. The right to all the land 
on the south side of the Pascataqua and to one third of the land 
in the Dover part of the patent remained with the patentees. 
The record reads as though there were two distinct patents, 
while in fact the lands north and south of the river were origin- 
ally included in one patent. 

Meanwhile the inhabitants of Strawberry Bank had ex- 
pressed their desire to come under the jurisdiction of Massachu- 
setts, as Hampton had been from the beginning of its settle- 
ment, and on the ninth day of the eighth month, 1641, the Gen- 
eral Court formally took under its government the whole region 
west of the Pascataqua, except Exeter. That town formally 
came under the agreement in 1643. The inhabitants were to 
have all the rights and privileges that belonged to the people of 
Massachusetts. They were also to have their own courts and to 
be exempt from all taxes except those levied for their own par- 
ticular benefit. They were to continue to fish, plant and fell 
timber as before. Commissioners from Massachusetts were sent 
to the court at Pascataqua to agree with the people about the 
appointment of magistrates, and those selected were Francis 
Williams, Thomas Wannerton and Ambrose Gibbons of Ports- 
mouth, Edward Hilton and Thomas Wiggin of Squamscot, and 
William Waldron of Cochecho. In 1642 an important article 
was added to the agreement, that "all the present inhabitants 
of Pascataquack, who formerly were free there, shall have liberty 


of freemen in their severall towns to manage al their town 
affairs & shall each town send a deputy to the General Court, 
though they be not at present Church members." The same 
privilege was accorded to the people of Maine in 1652. This 
concession to popular rights was not made in Massachusetts 
for a long time after, and there church and state were virtually 

There were many who did not relish the jurisdiction of 
Massachusetts, especially those who were of the Church of Eng- 
land. The Puritan ministers that came down from Harvard 
college did not administer the sacraments without question to 
all applicants and in the manner desired. When commissioners 
were sent from England, in 1665, to inquire into the causes of 
dissentions and discontent in Maine and New Hampshire, peti- 
tioners from the four towns and especially from Portsmouth told 
the commissioners in writing, that "five or six of the richest 
men of this parish have ruled, swaied and ordered all officers, 
both civil and military, at their pleasure. None of your honor's 
petitioners, though loyal subjects and some of them well ac- 
quainted with the laws of England, durst make any opposition 
for fear of great fines or long imprisonment." They even state 
plainly who the five or six rich oppressors and autocrats were, 
namely, Mr. Joshua Moody, the minister of the parish, who 
was much interested and very influential in politics, Richard Cutt, 
John Cutt, Elias Styleman, Nathaniel Fryer and Bryan Pendleton. 
There can be no doubt that their charges were true. A Httle coterie 
of rich merchants of Portsmouth were the political bosses of the 
time, and it continued to be so for many years. Indeed this per- 
version of popular government has spread and increased down 
through the generations since. The education of the masses 
seems to be the only remedy. The petitioners go on to say 
that they have been kept under hard servitude, having been 
denied the Common Prayer Sacraments and decent burial of the 
dead, contrary to the laws of England and his Majesty's letter 
sent by Simon Bradstreet and John Norton in the year 1662. 
They further charge that the above mentioned offenders had 
kept possession of the offices and thus held in their power the 
distribution of land, whereby they had obtained large tracts of 
the best land and disowned grants made to others. Here was a 


political and economic contest between Puritans and Churchmen. 
Among the signers of this petition are found some of the most 
prominent and honored names of the colonists, such as Francis 
Champernowne, Abraham Corbet who was imprisoned for his 
opposition, John Pickering, John Sherburne, Mark Hunking, 
George Walton, Joseph Atkinson and Samuel Fernald. Thirty- 
two men of Portsmouth signed this petition. At about the same 
time another petition was addressed to the king, declaring that 
the authorities of Massachusetts had hindered the work of the 
commissioners and imploring that the towns of New Hampshire 
be joined to the province of Maine and brought under royal pro- 
tection. This petition was signed by sixty-one persons, includ- 
ing many of the names given above and also John Folsom of 
Exeter, Robert Burnham and twelve others of Oyster River, 
Thomas Roberts, Ralph Twombly, Thomas Hanson and others 
of Dover. There were no signers from Hampton, that town 
having been settled by Massachusetts people. ^ 

In 1667 Nicholas Shapleigh of Kittery, agent for the heirs 
of Captain John Mason, wrote to his patron that Captain Rich- 
ard Walderne and Peter Coffin of Dover and some others urged 
the inhabitants to stick to the government of Massachusetts be- 
cause they themselves had obtained great tracts of land and in 
the best places within Mason's patent. He, too, desired the 
union of Maine and New Hampshire and suggested the names of 
some who would be excellent councilors, modestly including his 
own name, such as Henry Jocelyn, Nicholas Shapleigh, Captain 
Francis Champernowne, Edward Hilton, Abraham Corbett and 
Thomas Footman. The last was an obscure man of Oyster River; 
the rest were well known opponents of the ambitious plans of the 
Massachusetts government. 

In 1664 Massachusetts sent an obsequious address to the king, 
in which they speak of themselves as "poor subjects, who have 
removed themselves into a remote corner of the earth to enjoy 
peace with God and man." They say that "the high place you 
sustain on earth doth number you here among the gods," and 
therefore they implore him "to imitate the God of heaven, in be- 
ing ready to maintain the cause of the afiflicted and the right of 
the poor and to receive their cries and addresses to that end." 

3N. H. State Papers, XVII, pp. 510-513. 


"The allknowing God knows our greatest ambition is to live a 
poor and quiet life, in a corner of the world, without offence to 
God and man. Wee came not into this wilderness to seeke 
g"reat things to ourselves, and if any come after us to seeke them 
heere they will be disappointed. Wee keep ourselves within our 
line and meddle not with matters abroad ; a just dependence 
upon and subjection to your Majestic according to our Charter, 
it is far from our hearts to disacknowledge." All this was in- 
tended as a sop to Cerberus, for they anticipated that the report 
of the commissioners above referred to would be to the disad- 
vantage of Massachusetts, being well aware of the critisism.s 
and complaints of many in other colonies against them. The 
commissioners were Colonel Richard Nicolls, Sir Robert Carr, 
George Cartwright and Samuel Maverick. The last had former- 
ly lived at Noddle's Island, now East Boston, having come there 
some years before the arrival of Winthrop's fleet of emigrants. 
He knew the country well and the spirit of the people. What- 
ever had been the original purpose of the first emigrants to Mas- 
sachusetts, before 1665 there had arisen a spirit of independence, 
political ambition, exclusiveness in matters religious, and long- 
ing to increase their territory. 

The report of the commissioners is highly interesting. Carr, 
Cartwright and Maverick visited Portsmouth and the province 
of Maine. They gathered facts and opinions ; then they freed 
their minds to the governor and council of Massachusetts, under 
date of July 16, 1665. They assert that the Bound-House, three 
large miles north of the Merrimack river, determines the north- 
ern limit of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and answers all the 
false and fraudulent expositions of their charter. The people 
of that colony are cautioned not to be so much misled by the 
spirit of independency. "The King did not grant away his 
Soveraigntie over to you wihen he made you a Corporation. 
When his Majestic gave you power to make wholesome laws 
and to administer justice by them, he parted not with his right 
of judging whether those laws were wholesome, or whether 
justice was administered accordingly or no. When his Majes- 
tic gave you authority over such of his subjects as lived within 
the limits of your jurisdiction, he made them not your subjects 
nor you their supream authority. That prerogative certainly 
his Majestic reserved for himself, and this certainly you might 


have seen, if ambition and covetousness, or something as ill, 
had not darkened both your eyes." Then the governor and 
council are exhorted to clear themselves of "those many injustices, 
oppressions, violences and blood, for which you are complained 
against," and the conclusion is a home thrust at the pretended 
superior godliness of the people of the Bay. "Remember we pray 
you that you profess yourselves to be christians and pretend 
to be of the best sort. Pray make it appear that you are so, by 
your obedience to the King's authority, by your peaceableness 
towards your neighbors, and by your justice amongst yourselves, 
which are christian virtues, that men may see your good works 
and then &c." 

It seems that even so early in the history of New England 
corporations assumed to themselves more powers and privileges 
than rightly belonged to them and needed to be reminded of 
their limitations. In every age those dressed in a little brief 
authority are too much inclined to act in an arbitrary and tyran- 
nical manner. Since the corporation has no soul, its members 
sometimes forget that they have souls and hence feel little sense 
of moral accountability. At that time their authority was all 
derived from the king, who might retract the powers conferred ; 
now the people, the common folks, confer authority upon dele- 
gated representatives. Officials and corporations are the ser- 
vants of the people who elected and made them, and public 
opinion often reminds such servants that they are not absolutely 
independent. They must serve the King. 

That the commissioners were not alone nor unduly preju- 
diced in their judgment of the usurpations and offences of the 
rulers of Massachusetts is shown in a letter of Sir Richard 
Saltonstall to the Rev. Mr. Cotton. "It doth not a little grieve 
my spirit to heare what sad things are reported daily of your 
tyranny and persecutions in New England, as that you fyne, 
whip, and imprison men for their consciences." Their laws 
were based upon the Mosaic code, framed and interpreted by the 
ministers of the church, whose power was as great and as 
severely exercised as was that of John Calvin at Geneva. The 
largest ingredient of their zeal for God was love of authority. 
Loyalty to truth meant to them the forcing of their religious 
beliefs and practices upon others. The commissioners wrote 
home to England, "They will not admit any who is not a mem- 


ber of their church to the communion nor their children to bap- 
tism, yet they will marry their children to those whom they 
will not admit to baptism, if they be rich. * * * Those whom 
they will not admit to the communion they compel to come to 
their sermons by forcing from them five shillings for every 
neglect; yet these men thought their own paying of one shilling 
for not coming to prayer in England was an insupportable 
tyranny. ♦ * * They convert Indians by hiring them to come 
and hear sermons, by teaching them not to obey their heathen 
Sachems, and by appointing rulers amongst them, over tens, 
twenties, fifties, &c. The lives, manners and habits of those 
whom they say are converted cannot be distinguished from those 
who are not, except it be by being hired to hear sermons, which 
the more generous natives scorn." 

Such criticisms were made by wise, candid and just men, 
who knew well the spirit and practices of the ministers of 
Massachusetts and their followers. Those who sternly adhere to 
the letter that killeth work all the more mischief because they 
are conscientiously wrong. Their reverence for outgrown au- 
thorities and commandments of men hinder them from the exer- 
cise of charity and independent thinking. Though persecutions 
and martyrdoms could not crush out the religious convictions 
of the Puritans, called heresy by the ruling church in England, 
yet they knew no better way of saving their neighbors from be- 
ing heretics of another class. Hence Antinomians, Baptists, 
Quakers and witches were banished, flogged, imprisonned, or 
hanged. Such Puritans deserve to be ranked with Saul of Tar- 
sus rather than with Paul the Apostle. 

The most conspicuous illustration of the bigotry, cruelty 
and spiritual blindness of the rulers in Massachusetts was their 
treatment of members of the Society of Friends, called Quakers, 
for which many apologies have been written. The accusations 
of the oppressors have been received by some recent writers as 
evidence of face value against the spirit and conduct of the 
Quakers. Indeed by some it is made to appear that the Quakers 
were the real persecutors and that they ought not to have come 
across the Atlantic to disturb the Puritans in their worship and 
g-overnment, forgetting that four-fifths of the Quakers, who 
were whipped, banished and hanged, had been for years worthy 


and peaceable citizens of Massachusetts. Yet it is asserted that 
the Quakers were not punished for their heresy, or differences in 
religious belief, but for disturbing and threatening the peace of 
the communities in which they lived and for speaking evil of 
magistrates and ministers. Nothing could be farther from the 
truth. Their writings of that time, their court exarr^inations, 
their preserved letters and petitions, all breathe the spirit of 
charity, fortitude, forgiveness and christian forbearance. They 
felt that they were suffering and dying for the truth of the living 
God, with whom they lived in abiding communion. None but 
their bitter enemies spoke evil of them. There were two or three 
Quaker women, who manifestly were driven to insanity by 
persecutions of themselves or of others and committed offences 
against public decency by appearing naked in the streets, for 
which they should have been sent to a hospital. No violation 
of moral law is laid to their charge. They beheved somewhat 
differently from the ministers of the standing order. Their 
modes of worship were different from those of Congregational 
churches. Their speech and manners were odd, as judged by 
customary etiquette. Therefore more than four thousand of them 
suffered imprisonment in England, three were hanged on Bos- 
ton Common, women were stripped to the waist and beaten at 
the cart's tail from town to town, three had an ear cut off, 
scores were whipped with a threefold knotted whip, and every 
blow was meant to "kiss the bone," as one writer says. Others 
were thrown into prison in the dead of winter, without bed or 
covering, and kept without food for three and five days. So*Tie 
with their backs bleeding were driven into the wilderness and 
left to the mercy of wild beasts. By heavy fines some were 
robbed of all their property, reduced to poverty and then ban- 
ished from the colony. Two children of the Southwick family 
of Salem were sold into slavery after that their parents had been 
driven to death by persecution, — sold as slaves because they 
had no means left of paying unjust fines. Not only the Quakers 
themselves but also those who showed to them any kindness, 
hospitably sheltered them for a night, attended their religious 
services, or spoke in their defence, were fined and whipped. The 
spirit and methods were those of the Spanish inquisition, 
although we do not read of the use of racks, thumbscrews and 
gridirons. The three-knotted and three-fold lash, added to cold' 


and hunger, were enough to vent the rage of clerical inquisitors 
and, as they hoped, repress and prevent further heresy. 

And what was the heresy taught by these peaceful and pious 
Friends? Their fundamental teaching was the doctrine of the 
Inner Light, by which they meant the spirit of God in the spirit 
of man is the ultimate test of truth. No external authority of 
men can be substituted for the revelation and inspiration of the 
divine Spirit within. The sacred Scriptures are indeed the record 
of a revelation gradually perceived, but their truths must be 
re-revealed to the soul of the individual believer. In other words, 
as the Hebrew prophets foretold, all must be directly taught 
of God. This is now admitted by the best religious 
philosophers of all Protestantism to be the fundamental prin- 
ciple of true religion. * Thus the Quakers were in religious 
philosophy two centuries in advance of New England Congrega- 
tionalism, because they were guided by the Inner Light rather 
than by twisted interpretations of imperfect records. Conscien- 
tious religionists have never been persecuted for their sins and 
follies; it has always been for their truths and virtues. It is the 
genuine prophet that gets sawn asunder, or forced to hide in the 
dens and caves of the earth. History has demonstrated that the 
persecutor of the conscientious has been wrong in mind as well 
as in heart. The simple-hearted piety of the early Quakeress 
was more than a match, in the intellectual field, for the pretended 
wisdom of the graduates of Cambridge, Oxford and Harvard. 
It is the pure in heart that see the things divine. 

Yet the principle for which Protestantism contended, the 
right of private judgment, was implied in the Quaker doctrine of 
the Inner Light. The Puritan divines contradicted their own 
doctrine and history in their failure to tolerate and treat kindly 
those who differed from them in religious beliefs and practices. 
By their unchristian tempers, words and deeds, by their cruelty 
and injustice, by their narrowness and egotism they presented a 
contrast to the spirit and conduct of the Pentecostal disciples of 
Jesus. Excuses for their doings, by clerical pettifoggery, have 
been found in the ancient laws and practices of the Hebrews and 
in the twisted sayings of Saint Paul, but surely nobody could 

4 See Prof. Sabatier's Religions of Authority and the Religion of the 


ever appeal to Jesus for justification of the spirit and conduct 
of Governor Endicott, the Rev. John Norton and the General 
Court of Massachusetts in their treatment of the Quakers. 
Neither can the comparative ignorance of the times, nor the 
faults of the age, excuse them. There were many who de- 
nounced them then. Even the mob was feared, lest common 
humane sentiment might rescue prisoners out of their bloody 
hands. One hundred armed soldiers guarded to the gallows 
those who were hanged on Boston Common. 

It is true that the Inner Light of the individual was some- 
times opposed to the common sense of the many, and so it 
needed to be brought for regulation to the judgment of the wise 
and good. The Quakers never maintained the infallibility of 
private judgment nor scorned the advice of the sincere and 
holy. They learned from one another as well as from the Spirit 
of Truth. They sought the concurrent opinion of all those who 
gave evidence of being divinely guided and in the impartial court 
of collective and consecrated human wisdom they found their 
final authority in religion. To seek it elsewhere has always 
proved to be vain and harmful. The Puritan divines found their 
final authority in a collection of sacred books, of which they 
thought themselves to be the proper interpreters, and they suf- 
fered no appeal from their decisions. The Bible to them was 
absolutely infallible, and they were the divinely appointed ex- 
positors of its truths. Their claim was not much different in 
theory from that of the Roman Catholic Church for its Popes 
and Councils. It was not so much the basal doctrine of Quaker- 
ism that was feared as its political consequences. The doctrine 
of the Puritans kept all authority in the hands of the few church 
members, who alone were freemen and consequently had power 
to vote and hold office. They meant the State to be a 
theocracy, of which they were the earthly agents. They would 
not divide their power with others. Those who could not and 
would not agree with them had liberty to go and stay elsewhere 
if they went silently. All who dissented from them were denied 
the common rights of Englishmen and were barred out of a 
certain portion of the King's dominion. 

The traditional stories about the impertinence, extravagan- 
cies and fanaticism of the early Quakers in Massachusetts may 
safely be thrown out of court as the prejudiced and exaggerated 


reports of their enemies. All such charges have been abundantly 
refuted by trustworthy authors. ^ 

As an illustration of the intolerance of the leaders in Massa- 
chusetts, that intolerance which was magnified as a virtue, take 
this choice passage from The Simple Cobler of Aggawam, a 
book written by the Rev. Nathaniel Ward of Ipswich, the same 
who drew up the first codified laws of the colony, wherein the 
criminal code was copied almost word for word from the Penta- 
teuch. He says, "He that willingly assents to the last [tolera- 
tion], if he examines his heart by daylight, his conscience will 
tell him, he is either an atheist, or an heretic, or an hypocrite, 
or at best a captive to some lust. Polypiety is the greatest 
impiety in the world. To authorize an untruth by toleration of 
the state, is to build a sconce against the walls of heaven, to 
batter God out of his chair. Persecution of true religion and 
toleration of false are the Jannes and Jambres to the kingdom 
of Christ, whereof the last is by far the worst. He that is will- 
ing to tolerate any unsound opinion, that his own may be 
tolerated though never so sound, will for a need hang God's Bible 
at the devil's girdle. It is said that men ought to have 
liberty of conscience and that it is persecution to debar 
them of it : I can rather stand amazed than reply to this ; it 
is an astonishment that the brains of men should be par- 
boiled in such impious ignorance." ^ But who shall be the 
judge of truth? The Pope, or the King, or the General Court, 
or the Congregational ministers of the Massachusetts Bay 
Colony ? It is true that one should not compromise with one's 
own conscientious convictions, but that does not make it one's 
duty to force those convictions upon others. Ministers are still 
pledged to banish and drive all strange doctrines from their 
parishes, although our laws allow heathen worshipers of every 
name to build their temples in our land. Some have learned 
that error must be overcome by reason and right living, rather 
than crushed out by force. 

The facts here related have been told again and again, yet 
they can not properly be left out of a history of New Hampshire. 

5 The Emancipation of Massachusetts, by Brooks Adams ; the Quaker 
Invasion of Massachusetts, by Richard P. Hallowell, and Sewel's Hist, of 
the Quakers. 

6 Farmer's Belknap, p. 46. 


On the fourteenth of October, 1656, the General Court of Massa- 
chusetts made the following record : "Whereas there is a cursed 
sect of hereticks lately risen up in the world, which are com- 
monly called Quakers, who take upon them to be immediately 
sent of God, and infallibly assisted by the spirit to speake & 
write blasphemouth opinions, despising government & the order 
of God in church & commonwealth, speaking evil of dignities, 
reproaching and reviling magistrates and ministers, seeking to 
turn the people from the faith & gain proselites to their per- 
nicious waies," the Court doth order that no master of a vessel 
should bring a Quaker into the colony under penalty of one 
hundred pounds and if he did bring one he should carry him back 
or be imprisoned ; that any Quaker arriving in the colony should 
be at once imprisoned and severely whipped and set at hard 
labor, no person being allowed to converse with the same ; that 
no books or writings that contained the "devilish opinions" of 
the Quakers should be brought into the country, nor be dis- 
persed nor concealed, under penalty of five pounds ; that nobody 
should undertake to defend the heretical opinions of the Quakers, 
under penalty of forty shillings for the first ofifence, of four 
pounds for the second offence, and for the third offence he 
should be committed to prison and banished from the jurisdic- 
tion of Massachusetts ; and lastly that any person who should 
revile the office or person of magistrates or ministers should 
be severely whipped or pay five pounds. This law proved to be 
not sufficiently barbarous, and so the following year it was 
strengthened by the decree that whosoever might entertain or 
conceal a Quaker should forfeit to the country forty shillings for 
every hour's entertainment or concealment, and that "if any 
Quaker or Quakers shall presume, after they have once suffered 
what the lawe requireth, to. come into this jurisdiction, every 
such male Quaker shall, for the first offence have one of his 
eares cut off and be kept at worke in the house of correction till 
he cann be sent away at his owne charge, and for the second 
offence shall have his other eare cut off, &c., and kept at the 
house of correction as aforesaid ; and every woman Quaker that 
hath suffered the lawe heere that shall presume to come into 
this jurisdiction shall be severely whipped and kept at the house 
of correction at work till she be sent away at her owne charge, 
and so also for her coming again she shall be alike used as afore- 


said ; and for every Quaker, he or she, that shall a third time 
herein again offend they shall have their tongues bored through 
with a hot iron & kept at the house of correction, close to worke, 
till they be sent away at their owne charge. And it is further 
ordered, that all and every Quaker arising from amongst our- 
selves shall be dealt with and suffer the like punishment as the 
lawe provides against forreigne Quakers." '^ 

Major Richard Waldern of Cochecho was one of the depu- 
ties at the court when these wicked laws were enacted, and he 
lifted not his voice against them. A few years later he made 
himself odious by sentencing three Quaker women in a naanner 
that would now disgrace the court of any petty ruler in heauien- 
dom. The order was issued December 22, 1662, in the dead of 

To the Constables of Dover, Hampton, Salisbury, Newbury, Rowley, 
Ipswich, Wenham, Lynn, Boston, Roxbury, Dedham, and untill these vaga- 
bond Quakers are out of this jurisdiction: — 

You and every one of you are required in the King's Majestie's name 
to take these vagabond Quakers, Anna Coleman, Mary Tompkins and Alice 
Ambrose, and make them fast to the cart's tail ; and drawing the cart through 
your several towns, to whip them upon their naked backs, not exceeding ten 
stripes apiece on each of them, in each town ; and so convey them from 
constable to constable till they are out of this jurisdiction, and you will 
answer it at your peril ; and this shall be your warrant. Per me, Richard 

It has been asserted by Quaker authorities that this dis- 
graceful order was drawn up by the Rev. John Reyner, who 
was at that time the minister of Dover, and it is almost certain 
that it was done with his consent and approval, for any minister 
within the jurisdiction of Massachusetts could have prevented 
such barbarity in his own town, had he been so disposed. 
Traditions concerning the gentle disposition of Mr. Reyner do 
not save him from the condemnation of history, for a "a man 
may smile and smile and be a villain," and it is well known that then 
a minister could weep and pray and be gentle to his friends and 
still be a persecutor of heretics in the most bitter spirit and cruel 

The occasion of the above merciless order may be told as 
follows, condensed and modified from the account as given by 

7 N. H. Prov. Papers, Vol. I, pp. 226-230. 


George Bishop in his book, New England Judged by the Spirit 
of the Lord, published in 1667. Mary Tompkins and Alice 
Ambrose from old England and George Preston and Edward 
Wharton from Salem visited Dover in the year 1662. There 
they conversed with many of the people at the inn on Dover 
Neck. Some of the inhabitants ran to parson Rayner's house 
and fetched him to refute the arguments which they could not 
answer. A theological wrangle ensued about the mysteries of 
the Trinity, and parson Reyner is said to have been much fretted 
and in a rage. However, many were convinced that the Quakers 
were in the right, who abode there a few days and then crossed 
over to Kittery, where they were lodged by Major Nicholas 
Shapleigh. Toward winter of 1662 Mary Tomkins, Alice 
Ambrose and Ann Coleman went again to Dover to visit 
those who had embraced their faith and to scatter more seeds 
of truth, when a "flood of persecution arose by the instigation 
of the Priest," which led to the above given order of Major 
Walderne. On examination before Walderne he began to tell 
them of the law against Quakers. Mary Tomkins replied, "So 
there was a law that Daniel should not pray to his God," to 
which he answered, "and Daniel suffered and so shall you." He 
asked Alice Ambrose her name, which appeared in the warrant. 
"My name," she said, "is written in the Lamb's Book of Life." 
He replied, "Nobody here knows the Book and for this you shall 
suffer." One of the tender women was little and crooked, yet 
in a very cold day they were all stripped from the waist upward 
and tied to the tail of a cart with ropes, seeing which James 
Heard asked if those were the "cords of the covenant." After 
a while they were cruelly whipf>ed, "whilst the Priest stood and 
looked on and laughed at it, which some of the friends seeing 
testified against, for which Walderne put two of them, Eliakin 
Wardel of Hampton and William Fourbush of Dover, in the 
stocks." This William Furbish, Scotchman, soon afterward set- 
tled in what is now Eliot, Maine, and many of his descendants 
united with the Society of Friends in that place. 

"Having dispatched them in this town and made way to 
carry them over the waters and through woods to another, the 
women denied to go unless they had a copy of their warrant, 
so your executioner sought to set them on horseback, but they 
slid off ; then they endeavored to tie each to a man on horse- 


back; that would not do either, nor any course they took till 
the copy was given, insomuch that the constable professed that 
he was almost wearied with them. But the copy being given 
them, they were with the executioner to Hampton, and through 
dirt and snow at Salisbury, half way the leg deep, the Constable 
forced them after the Cart's tayl at which he whipped them, 
under which cruelty and sore usage the tender women traversing 
their way through all was a hard spectacle to those who had in 
them anything of tenderness; but the Presence of the Lord 
was so with them (in the extremity of their suflferings) that 
they sung in the midst of them to the astonishment of their 

This outdoes Paul and Silas singing in the Philippian jail 
at midnight. The sentence meant death by the most cruel 
torture, for the minister and the judge well knew that the 
Quakeresses could not survive to be dragged thus a distance 
of eighty miles and receive one hundred and ten blows with a 
whip of three cords. It is a wonder that they lived to reach 
Salisbury. It is a greater wonder that before they reached that 
town nobody had the pity and courage to rescue them from the 
bloody hands of the executioner. It shows how human law, 
however repulsive, is stronger than the divine in the hearts of 
weaklings. The people feared the spoiling of their goods and 
like punishment for themselves, if they interfered with the 
judgment of the court and the work of the constable. It is to 
the honor of Salisbury that the inhuman outrage could proceed 
no further. Sewel says that "their bodies were so torn, that 
if Providence had not watched over them, they might have been 
in danger of their lives. But it fell out so that they were dis- 
charged : for the constable at Salisbury who must have carried 
them to Newbury, was desired by one Walter Barefoot to make 
him his deputy, who thus receiving the warrant set them at 
liberty; though John Wheelwright, the priest, advised the con- 
stable to drive on, as his safest way." We shall meet this Walter 
Barefoot again. It is said that he acted with the connivance of 
Major Robert Pike. Just as no sea-captain could be found to 
bear Cassandra Southwick away to slavery in the Barbadoes, 
so nobody was found in Salisbury who would further torture 
and pass on to the next town's torture three feeeble Quaker 


women, their naked backs lacerated and bleeding in the wintry 
cold. And so they escaped death, but 

"Sore from their cart-tail scourgings, and from the pillory lame, 
Rejoicing in their wrtchedness, and glorying in their shame." 

Nothing can silence prophetic impulse. Sooner will the 
stones cry out than the religious reformer keep still. These 
persecuted women returned to work, moved thereto by a thus- 
saith-the-Lord within them. They found shelter with Major 
Shapleigh in Kittery and after a little while revisited their 
friends just across the river, on Dover Neck. There, while they 
were met together on the first day of the week and were in 
prayer, "the constable Thomas Roberts and his brother John, 
like sons of Belial, having put on their old Cloaths with their 
aprons, on purpose to carry on their Drudgery, taking Alice 
Ambrose, the one by the one Arm and the other by the other 
Arm, they unmercifully dragged her out of Doors, with her 
face towards the snow which was knee deep, over stumps and 
old Trees near a Mile : in the way of which when they had 
wearied themselves they commanded two others to help them 
and so laid her up prisoner in a very wicked man's house 
(Thomas Canney's), which when they had done they made haste 
with the rest that were with them to fetch Mary Tomkins ; 
whom as they were dragging along with her face towards the 
Snow, the poor father of those two wicked Constables, following 
after Lamenting and Crying "Wo that ever he was the father 
of such wicked children," (From this man, Thomas Roberts, 
whose Labour was at an end, and who had lived in Dover thirty 
years and a member of their church above twenty years, they 
took his cow away which gave him and his wife a little milk, 
for not coming to their worship). So thither they haled Mary 
Tomkins also and kept them both all night in the same house ; 
and in the morning, it being exceedingly cold, they got into a 
certain Boat or Canoe or kind of Trow, hewed out of the body 
of a tree which the Indians use in the water, and in it they 
determined to have the three women down to the harbor's 
mouth ; and there put them in, threatening that they would 
now so do with them that they would be troubled with them 
no more." The women, being unwilling to go, were forced 
down a very steep place, in deep snow, and Edward Weymouth 


furiously took Mary Tomkins by the arms and dragged her on 
her back over the stumps of trees down a very steep hill to the 
water side, so that she was much bruised and after was dying 
away. Elder Hatevil Nutter was present, stirring up the con- 
stables to do this thing for which they had no warrant. Alice 
Ambrose they plucked violently into the water and kept swim- 
ming by the Canoe, being in danger of drowning or to be frozen 
to death. Ann Coleman they put in great danger of her life, 
and the three might have perished, had not a great tempest 
arisen, which drove them back to Canney's house, where they 
were kept prisoners till midnight. Then they were cruelly 
turned out of doors in the frost and snow, Alice Ambrose's 
cloths being frozen like boards. Still they lived to suffer more 
persecutions elsewhere. The best and the worst men of Dover 
combined to maltreat and drive away three helpless women, 
while old Thomas Roberts, who had once the honor of being 
chosen President of the Court, feebly cried out in pity and was 
fined for subsequent sympathy expressed. What a tragedy. 
Had the Indians known and understood all this, they would 
have hardly kept away from Dover Neck, when a few years later 
they ravaged Cochecho and Oyster River. Perhaps they stayed 
away because during the next twenty years so many persons 
on the Neck had turned Quaker, for here, too, the blood of the 
Quaker martyrs was the seed of their church. 

Again the Quaker women with others returned to Dover 
Neck and passed over to Oyster River, where on the first day 
of the week they went to Priest Hull's place of worship. This 
was the Rev. Joseph Hull, and his meeting house, built in 1656, 
stood on the south side of the river, three miles below the Falls. 
He was saying something against women's preaching when he 
fell into confusion, and Mary Tomkins rose up and declared the 
truth to the astonished congregation. Just here John Hill, of 
whom it is not recorded that he ever showed religious zeal 
on any other occasion, "in his wrath thrust her down from the 
place where she stood, with his own hands, and the priest 
pinched her arms," whereupon the Quakers were had out of 
the meeting house. But in the afternoon they had a meeting, 
attended by most of Hull's congregation. Pinching and rough 
handling seem to have answered all the requirements of this 
occasion, and the next year Edward Wharton appeared to trouble 



the magistrates, Thomas Wiggin, Richard Walderne and 
William Hathorne. "Thomas Wiggin, Thomas Wiggin," said 
the dauntless Wharton, "Thou shouldst not rage so ; thou art 
old and very gray, and thou art an old persecutor ; it's time for 
thee to give over, for thou mayst be drawing near to thy grave." 
Whereupon Wharton was ordered to be tied to a cart's tail and 
whipped through three towns, ten stripes in each town. It was 
fourteen miles to the next town and Wharton was too weak 
to walk it ; so they put him in prison till he somewhat recovered 
from his first beating, and then the rest of the sentence was 
executed, — in obedience to law. 

The conduct of the Quakeresses may appear to us now like 
a wilful disturbance of public worship, but we must remember 
that they, in common with all Quakers, had been taught to keep 
silence and to speak, according as the Spirit moved. They 
had the example of the apostles in the temple, speaking "as the 
Spirit gave them utterance," and of the early Christians of 
Corinth, as described in the fourteenth chapter of St. Paul's 
epistle to that church. They used the liberty of prophesying, 
as it has been exercised in recent times by members of the 
congregation, after the minister had finished his discourse ; and 
such "prophesying" has been welcomed when there was an 
evident outburst of the heart. A controversial utterance would 
not be so well received in any age. We shall see later on that 
a prominent abolitionist adopted the same method of expressing 
his conscientious convictions and with similar reaction upon 
himself. In both cases persecution was invited for the purpose 
of awakening the public mind. When the moral reformer has 
made somebody mad and got the whole town talking about it, 
he has half won his case. 

At another time five more Quaker preachers came to Dover, 
including Ann Coleman, the irrepressible. They went to the 
place of worship, on the height of Dover Neck, and were 
promptly sent to prison by Major Walderne. There they were 
detained almost two weeks, "though he confessed that for aught 
he knew they might be such as were spoken of in the 11th of 
Hebrews, yet he must execute the law against them, and so 
set them at Liberty. The people promised that the priest 
Rayner should give them a fair reasoning when his worship 
was done; but he broke his word and packed away; and though 


the women followed him to his house yet he would not turn, 
but clapt to his door, having taken out the key and turned Anna 
Coleman out of the house." After this some of the people of 
Dover, especially in the Oyster River parish, were fined for 
being absent from meeting and attending Quaker worship and 
entertaining Quakers, among whom were William Roberts,, 
William Williams, William Follet, James Smith, John Goddard, 
Thomas Roberts, James Nute, Mary Hanson and the wife of 
Richard Pinkham, who sat in the stocks because her husband 
would not or could not pay a fine of sixty-five shillings. 

"Truth crushed to earth shall rise again" ; so it did in 
Dover, and a Quaker meeting house was built, and a company 
of godly men and women gathered in it. The children of some 
of the persecutors were converted to the views and practices 
of the Friends, and to this day the Quaker church in Dover 
lives, and their house of worship stands as a monument to the 
noble army of those who had the martyr spirit. This disgrace 
of persecuting the Friends in New Hampshire was due to the 
Puritan rule of Massachusetts for a time therein. 

When New Hampshire was swallowed up by Massachusetts 
the formation of a new county became expedient. Norfolk 
County was formed May lO, 1643. It consisted of the towns 
of Salisbury, Hampton, Haverhill, Exeter, Dover and Straw- 
berry Bank, or Portsmouth. The early judges and associates 
were Francis Williams, Thomas Wiggin, George Smyth, Samuel 
Dudley, Robert Clements, Ambrose Lane, Brian Pendleton, 
Henry Sherburne, Major Richard Walderne, Major Robert Pike, 
Edward Hilton, Richard Cutt, Valentine Hill, and Reynold 
Fernald. Usually the associates were chosen by the towns and 
confirmed by the General Court, while judges were sent by the 
Massachusetts Bay Colony to hold the principal courts, such 
as Major William Hathorne of Salem, ancestor of Nathaniel 
Hawthorne, Richard Bellingham, afterward governor of Massa- 
chusetts, Simon Bradstreet and Gen. John Leverett, both 
governors a little later, Major Humphrey Atherton, Captain 
Daniel Gookin and William Stoughton. Norfolk County ceased 
to exist September 18, 1679, when New Hampshire was made a 
separate royal province. The records of the courts held at 
Portsmouth and Dover are carefully preserved and well indexed 
at Concord ; those of courts held elsewhere may be seen at 


Salem, Massachusetts. Many abstracts from the latter have 
been published in the Essex Antiquarian. 

Massachusetts, following the example of Christian nations 
of Europe and basing her criminal code on the Mosaic law, had 
a law that condemned witches and wizards to death. The first 
execution for witchcraft in New England was that of Margaret 
Jones of Charlestown, who seems to have practiced medicine 
to some sleight degree as a quack and to have said and done 
some things not easily explained. The habit of the age and of all 
preceding ages was to refer all things mysterious to either God 
or the devil for their origin. A number of respectable persons 
testified that in their opinion goodwife Jane Walford of Ports- 
mouth was a witch. This was in 1656. Jane vanished out of 
sight in the shape of a cat. She brought strange disease upon 
a certain person, whose back became as a flame of fire. She 
touched the breast of another and he was in great pain till the 
next day. She even was thought to bewitch cattle. A yellowish 
cat seen in a garden grew to be three cats, all somehow identified 
with Jane Walford. One witness said there were three witches 
at Strawberry Bank ; "one was Thomas Turpin, who was 
drowned accidentally ; another was old Ham ; and the third 
should be nameless because he should be blameless." The case 
against goodwife Walford was dropped and she brought action 
for slander against one person who called her a witch, sueing 
for one thousand pounds and getting a verdict in her favor for 
five pounds and costs of court. Later, in 1680, a coroner's jury 
in Hampton found in their verdict "grounds of suspicion that 
the child was murdered by witchcraft" and Rachel Fuller was 
thought by many to be the witch. She acted in some respects 
like a crafty maniac, and it was testified that she declared there 
were eight women and two men who were witches and wizards 
in Hampton, among whom was Eunice Cole. The latter had 
been whipped in 1656 and then imprisoned in Boston for twelve 
years, on charge of witchcraft. In 1672 she was again arraigned 
on the old charge of witchcraft and it was testified that she 
appeared at times as a woman, a dog, an eagle and a cat. The 
court at Boston adjudged her not guilty and at the same time 
declared that there was "just ground of vehement suspissyon 
of her haueing had famillyarrty with the deuill." Whittier has 


made us familiar with her in his poem, the Wreck of River- 
mouth. She was thought to have had the power of drowning 
persons with an invisible hand. 

In 1682, Naomi Daniel of Oyster River was presented at 
court for slander in saying that her brother-in-law and her sister, 
Benjamin Mathes and wife, were wizard and witch, in that they 
had bewitched her cow into the mire twice. She herself had 
been accused of bewitching a sick child, but she affirmed that 
others had bewitched the child and accused her only to hide 
their own roguery. ^ 

The same year goodwife Jones of Portsmouth was charged 
with witchcraft and she had retaliated on George Walton by 
calling him a wizard. Samuel Clark, son of John Clark of Great 
Island, mariner, "testifieth and saith that he was present when 
Goody Jones and George Walton were talking together, & he 
heard the said Goody Jones call ye said Walton wizard & that 
she said if he told her of her mother she would throw stones 
.at his head. And this was on Friday ye 25th of August, 1682." 
Elizabeth Clark, aged forty-two, testified that "she heard George 
Walton say that he believed in his heart and Conscience that 
gammer Jones was a witch and would say soe to his diinge day." 
This was on the 31st of August, 1682. Others testified that 
stones flew in a mysterious manner about Walton, as he and 
others were unloading hay from a boat, and that some of the 
stones hit him. Goody Jones was suspected, although nobody 
saw her. Walton's fence had been torn down, and this was 
charged against Goody Jones the witch, which she denied. It 
seems to have been the habit of the times to call an offending 
person by the damaging name of witch or wizard. It was the 
easiest way of accounting for wrong-doing, and it vented the 
spite of accusers. W^e do not read of any conviction and penalty, 
except in the case of Eunice Cole. The jurisdiction of Massa- 
chusetts over New Hampshire had ceased before the height 
of the witchcraft craze in Salem and Boston, and the executions 
there found no response on the Pascataqua. There is no men- 
tion of witchcraft after the year 1682, though the statute law 
still remained, that witches and wizards should not be suffered 
to live.^ 

8 Hist, of Durham. N. H., Vol. II, p. 22^. 
9N. H. Court Files. Vol. VI, pp. 379-381. 


An item of some importance in the early history of New 
Hampshire has been overlooked by historians. This was the 
bringing in, as servants, of some Scotchmen, who had been 
taken prisoners by Oliver Cromwell in the battle of Dunbar^ 
September 3, 1650, and the battle of Worcester, just one year 
later. One hundred and fifty from Dunbar were sent to Boston 
in the ship Unity and there sold to pay their passage money 
of twenty pounds apiece. They were forced to work as appren- 
tices from six to eight years, after which they had their liberty 
and received grants of land in towns where they chose to settle. 
Two hundred and seventy-two more prisoners came over from 
the battle of Worcester in the ship John and Sara. A score or 
more of these Scots were employed in the sawmills at Oyster 
River and Exeter, that then included Newmarket, and some 
became permanent settlers in those places. Among them were 
Walter Jackson and William Thompson's son John at Oyster 
River, John Hudson of Bloody Point, and John Sinclair, John 
Bean, Alexander Gordon and John Barber of Exeter. The 
descendants of these include some of the leading men in the 

It is interesting to know that when in 1669 it was desired 
to substitute at Harvard College a new brick building for the 
old wooden one, that was then in a state of decay, the citizens 
of Portsmouth pledged sixty pounds per annum for seven years, 
and the town later by vote endorsed the pledge. Dover gave 
thirty-two pounds and Exeter ten pounds for the same purpose. 

The Rev. Joshua Moody began his ministry in Portsmouth 
in 1658, but was not ordained till 1671. Then a church was 
regularly gathered, consisting of nine members, Joshua Moody, 
John Cutt, Richard Cutt, Elias Stileman, Richard Martyn, 
Samuel Haynes, James Pendleton, John Fletcher and John 
Tucker. A new meeting house was built about 1657. The 
election of Mr. Moody as pastor and teacher was approved by 
the General Court and Governor Leverett was present at his 
ordination. In 1672 it was voted that if any shall smoke tobacco 
in the meeting house at any public meeting, he shall pay a fine 
of five shillings for the use of the town. In those days all town 
meetings were held in the customary place of worship, and the 
place was considered sacred on all days.^*^ 

50 See The Four Meeting Houses of the North Parish of Portsmouth, by 
Charles A. Hazlett, in Granite Monthly, XXXVIII. pp. 37-44- 


Reserving" for a separate chapter some account of the first 
Indian war we pass in review the facts pertaining to the 
Masonian claims that led up to the end of the jurisdiction of 
Massachusetts over New Hampshire. Captain John Mason, who 
died in 1635, left all his property in New England to his wife, 
Ann Mason, and ultimately to his grandson, Robert Tufton, 
on condition of his taking the surname Mason. Mrs. Mason 
died in 1654, and Robert Tufton Mason in 1659 petitioned 
Parliament for a committee to adjudicate his claims under the 
original grants made to his grandfather. We have seen that 
commissioners, Carr, Cartwright and Maverick, came over in 
1665 and were opposed by the government of Massachusetts. 
They were impowered by the king to use their discretion in the 
settlement of conflicting claims, and they partially heard the 
case of Mason's heirs at Portsmouth. The rulers of the Bay 
Colony warned the people of New Hampshire not to obey the 
commissioners and claimed that their charter from the king 
gave them right of jurisdiction that could not be interfered with 
by any commissioners. If chartered rights could be thus easily 
set aside or interfered with by men sent over from England 
to act at their discretion, this would be equivalent to a revoca- 
tion of the charter and the destruction of civil liberties. They 
had claimed and enjoyed almost complete independence too long 
to now give it up without a decided protest. They even threat- 
ened to abandon the colony and go elsewhere rather than yield 
to the commissioners. The king commanded Massachusetts 
Bay Colony to send over four or five agents, that he might 
listen in person to their claims and arguments. Meanwhile 
the best legal authorities in England had pronounced in favor 
of the claims of the heirs of Mason to the soil, but not to the 
jurisdiction of New Hampshire. These legal opinions were 
rendered by Sir Goeffrey Palmer in 1660 and by Sir William 
Jones, Attorney General, and others in 1675. The judges also 
reported that Massachusetts had no just claim to territory north 
of three miles north of the Merrimack river and consequently 
no jurisdiction. 

Meanwhile efforts and propositions had been made by the 
heirs of Mason to sell the province. On the thirteenth of 
November, 1671, Robert Mason proposed to the king, that "if 
his Majestie shall please to grant unto Robert Mason the 


Importation of three hundred Tonns of ifrench Wine free of all 
Customs in consideration thereof he will sell to his Alajtie his 
Patent of New Hampshire in New England. "^^ 

Surely this was a small price and it indicates how dis- 
couraged the heirs of Mason then were. Colonel Robert Pike 
of Salisbury wrote to Robert Mason, November 19, 1672, saying 
that the magistrates of Massachusetts "have requested mee to 
write unto you, earnestly desiring that all former disputes and 
differences may be forgotten and a happy agreement made, to 
which end if you shall be pleased to joyne your province to 
this as to government they will add their authority to your 
right, whereby you may have what reasonable acknowledge- 
ment you please of every Inhabitant in your province, and if 
you shall please to come and live in these parts, you will find 
that due honor and respect shewed you, as the memory of your 
Noble Grandfather deserves and your own great worth and 
meritts may challenge, for doeing soe meritorious a worke as 
the happy uniting of these two provinces under one government, 
wherein your advantage will be equall to theirs & nothing shall 
be imposed upon you in relation thereunto, but shall seem both 
reasonable and honorable unto you, whereby all animosityes 
will cease and there will be no need of engaging higher powers 
in these concernes."^- 

Evidently the intention of Massachusetts had been noised 
abroad, for August 9, 1662, Francis Champernowne, and Henry 
Jocelyn wrote to Robert Mason, dissuading him from accepting 
the offer of Massachusetts. Thus it is seen that for the sake 
of enlarging and confirming an assumed jurisdiction the magis- 
trates of the Bay Colony were willing to join with the heirs 
of Mason in demanding rents and payments for land of every 
settler in New Hampshire. They seem to have cared not at all 
for the rights and liberties of others, while so assertive and 
tenacious of their own. 

Another attempt was made to sell the province to the king. 
On the twentieth of March, 1673-4, William, Earl of Sterling, 
Ferdinando Gorges, Esq., and Robert Mason proposed to the 
king to surrender their patents in consideration of "new Grants 
from your Majty of one third part of all the Costomes, Rents, 

11 Copy of Colonial Papers. Vol. XXVII, No. 43, N. H. Hist. Society. 

12 Colonial Papers, Vol. XXVIII, No. 67. 


ffynes, and other profits which shall be made in the said 
Provinces, or such other reasonable compensacon in Lieu 
thereof as yor Majesty shall think fitt." This proposal was 
signed by Robert Mason alone.^^ 

These attempts to sell the province having failed, the claims 
of the heirs of Mason were renewed and in 1676 the king, 
Charles II, sent a letter to the government of Massachusetts, 
the bearer thereof being Edward Randolph, a kinsman of Mason. 
The letter ordered that agents be sent to England within six 
months to hear and answer the claims and representations of 
Robert Mason and Ferdinando Gorges. The letter was to be 
read publicly before the General Court and in the presence of 
Randolph, who was to return their answer to the king. Copies 
of the camplaints accompained the king's letter, all of which 
were read as ordered and the only answer was that they would 
consider it. The leaders in Boston did not hesitate to tell 
Randolph that they considered him Robert Mason's agent. 
Randolph made a journey into New Hampshire and evidently 
conversed with many who sided with Mason because of their 
opposition to the rule of Massachusetts. In his report to the 
king Randolph stated "that he had found the whole country 
complaining of the usurpation of the magistrates of Boston, 
earnestly hoping and expecting that his Majesty would not 
permit them any longer to be oppressed, but would give them 
relief according to the promise of the commissioners on 1665." 
Herein he echoed the wishes of such men as Walter Barefoot, 
Abraham Corbet and many others, but this was not the senti- 
ment of the majority of the voters of New Hampshire. 
Randolph's letter has been called a "Lying report." It was 
rather a true but prejudiced report of information gained from 
partial judges. The following year, 1677, four separate petitions 
were sent to the king from the four towns of New Hampshire, 
asking that they be continued under the government of Massa- 
chusetts. The petition from Dover was signed by twenty-nine 
persons, certainly not the majority of voters, and Major Richard 
Walderne and Elder William Wentworth were the leading 
spirits. Doubtless a counter petition would have been signed 
by as many others, for then as now few would resist the soHcita- 

13 Colonial Papers, Vol. XXXI, No. 22. 


tions of influential acquaintances. The petition from Exeter 
has thirty-two signers, headed by the Rev. Samuel Dudley, John 
Oilman and Robert Wadleigh, men of note. The petition from 
Portsmouth has fifty-six signatures, and we recognize the 
familiar names of the political leaders of that time, William 
Vaughan, Thomas Daniel, Samuel Haines, Brian Pendleton, 
John Pickering, the Rev. Joshua Moody, Elias Stileman, Richard 
Martyn, Nathaniel Fry«r, Robert Eliot, Tobias Leare and John 
Sherburne. Hampton's petition was signed by fifty, among them 
being William Sanborn, the Rev. Seaborn Cotton, Christopher 
Hussey, Andrew Wiggin, John Sanborn, Nathaniel Weare and 
the Rev. Samuel Dalton. Thus it appears that a large per- 
centage of the leading men of New Hampshire were in favor of 
continuing under the jurisidiction of Massachusetts, and it can 
not be doubted that their motive was, that they would thus be 
better protected against the claims of Robert Mason to their 
estates. Indeed this motive was openly declared in town meeting 
at Dover, when Major Richard Walderne was appointed to 
petition the king to interpose his authority in their favor, "that 
they might not be disturbed by Mason, or any other person, 
but continue peaceably in possession of their rights under the 
government of Massachusetts." 

At about the same time Randolph freed his mind to 
Governor Winslow of Plymouth, who in reply expressed his 
dislike of the way the authorities at Boston were conducting 
themselves. On the sixth of May, 1677, Randolph made a 
long report on the state of affairs in New England, in which he 
wrote, "Matters of fact concerne as much his Majesty as Mr. 
Mason and Tvlr. Gorges, and against the government of Massa- 
chusetts these following articles will be proved: 

1. That they have noe right either to land or to Government in any 
part of New England and have always been usurpers. 

2. That they have formed themselves into a Commonwealth, deneying 
any appeals to England and contrary to other Plantations doe not take the 
oath of Allegiance. 

3. They have protected the late King's Murtherers, directly contrary 
to his Majties Royall Proclamation of the 6th of June 1660, and of his letters 
of 28th June 1662. 

4. They Coine money with their own impress. 

5. They have put his Majties subjects to death for opinion in matters 
• of religion. I 


6. In the year 1665 they did violently oppose his Majties Commissioners 
in the settlement of New Hampshire and in 1668 by armed forces turned 
out his Majties Justices of the Peace in the Province of Maine in Con- 
tempt of his Majties Authority and Declaration of the loth of Aprill 1666. 

7. They impose an oath of fidelity upon all that inhabit within their 
Territoryes, to be true and ffaithfuU to their Government. 

8. They violate all the acts of Trade and navigation by which they 
have impressed the greatest part of the West India Trade, where his Majtie 
is damaged in his Customs above 100,000 pounds yearly and this Kingdom 
much more. 

The reasons stated by Randolph for a speedy hearing and 
determination of the matters involved in his report were as 
follows, — 

I. His Majesty hath an opportunity to settle that Country under his 
Royall Authority with Little charge, Sir John Berry being now at Virginia 
not far distant from New England, and it lyes in his way home, where are 
many good harbours free from the worme, convenient Towns for quartering 
of Souldiers, and plentifull Accomidations for men and shipping. 

,2. The earnest desire of most and best of the Inhabitants (wearied out 
with the Arbitrary proceedings of those in the present Government) to be 
under his majties Government and Laws. 

3. The Indians upon the Settlement of that Country it is presumed 
would Unanimously Submit and become very Serviceable and usefull for 
improving that Country, there being upward of Three hundred Thousand 
English inhabitants therein. 

Then Randolph adds his proposals for the settlen>ent of 
New England, which if adopted would probably lead to peace 
and prosperity. 

1. His Majties Gratious and General pardon, upon their conviction of 
having acted without and in contempt of his Majties Authority, will make 
the most refractory to comply to save their estates. 

2. His Majties declaration of confirming unto the Inhabitants the Lands 
and houses they now possess upon payment of an Easie Quit rent and 
granting Liberty of Conscience in matters of Religion. 

3. His Majties Commission directed to the most eminent persons for 
Estates and Loyalty in every Colony to meet, consult and act for the present 
peace and Safety of that Country during his majties pleasure, and that such 
of the present Magistrates be of the Councill as shall readily comply with 
his Majties comands in the Settling of the Country, and a pention to be 
allowed them out of the publique Revenue of the Country with some Title 
of Honour to be conferred upon the most deserving of them, will cause a 
general Submission.1'1 

34 Colonial Papers, Vol. XLIX. No. 67. 


The conduct of Edward Randolph earned for him the 
epithets, "Messenger of death," "the evil genius of Massachu- 
setts," "the general enemy of American liberty." Dr. Increase 
Mather called him "a child of the Divill," while the Rev. Cotton 
Mather was content to speak of him as "a blasted Wretch, 
followed with a sensible Curse of God, wherever he came ; Des- 
pised, Abhorred, Unprosperous." Thus the Puritans and those 
who have felt bound to defend them in all their unjust claims 
and doings have been inwardly moved to speak of the man who 
differed from them in public policy, who discerned and reported 
to the king the growing disloyalty of his subjects in Massachu- 
setts, and who had little sympathy for the arrogant clerical 
leaders there. Yet he seems disposed to treat them with more 
justice and forbearance than they evinced toward him. Later 
he would have been called a Tory. His reports are based upon 
the representations of many wise and good people in Maine, 
New Hampshire and Massachusetts. He saw that a different 
spirit prevailed in Massachusetts, an exaggerated demand for 
independency and Home Rule, intolerance and persecution of 
heretics, that did not prevail in other colonies. He thought that 
the clerical party in Massachusetts ought to be governed rather 
than governors. He was hated because he opposed their desires 
and schemes and by his plain talk did perhaps more than any 
other to bring about the revocation of the king's charter and 
the downfall of Puritan rule. Yet nothing could be said against 
his sincerity and honesty as a messenger of the king and a public 
official for many years ; neither was he lacking in mercy, though 
he may have been in charity, while his opponents were wanting 
in both these virtues. Most historians have followed the leading 
of the condemnatory writers of that early time, when hearts 
were hot with political hatred and baffled ambition, and have 
had little but evil to say of Edward Randolph. Candor needs 
to modify their rancorous accusations. Randolph's opinion 
respecting the disloyalty of the Massachusetts leaders and their 
ready followers in New Hampshire agreed quite well with the 
reports of the commissioners of 1665. Subsequent agents sent 
to New England, after a little experience, came to share the 
same conclusions. 

Massachusetts sent over to London as her agents William 
Stoughton, who had been a judge and afterward was lieutenant 
governor, and Peter Bulkley, then speaker of the house of 


deputies. These agents, being examined by the Lords of the 
Committee for Trade and Plantation, denied for the most part 
the statements of Randolph as given above. They admitted, 
however, that in 1652 the Massachusetts colony were necessi- 
tated to coin money for the support of their trade, and that this 
was never objected to before. They admitted also that some 
Quakers were put to death, having come again into the colony 
after banishment. They added "that there are many Quakers 
now living amongst them." Also they declared the law against 
the keeping of Christmas to have been made in the late troubles, 
but that, to their knowledge, it is not put in execution. 

The Lords of the Committee for Trade and Plantation 
recommended that a letter be sent to the government of Massa- 
chusetts and that two other agents be sent over to England, in 
place of Stoughton and Bulkley, who were desirous of returning 
to Boston. The proposed letter was approved by his Majesty's 
Council, and a letter from the king to the Massachusetts govern- 
ment, dated July 24, 1679, read some plain and easily understood 
lessons to the religious oligarchy at Boston. It commends them 
for requiring subjects to take the oath of allegiance, which duty 
had been formerly neglected. It declares the expectation of 
the king that henceforth there shall be allowed in the colony 
freedom of conscience, so that those of the Church of England 
and others who do not wish to worship in the Congregational 
way may be unhindered and not "subjected to ffines or ffor- 
feitures or other incapacities for the same, which is a severity 
the more to be wondered at, when as Liberty of Conscience was 
made one principal motive for your first transportation into 
those parts." Then notice was given, which must have caused 
the Bostoners to wince, that "Wee have appointed our Trusty 
and wellbeloved Subject, Edward Randolph Esqr, to be our 
Collector Surveyor and Searcher, not only for that Colony, but 
for all other Our Colonies in New England," and he was 
recommended to their help and assistance in the discharge of 
his duties. The letter goes on to express disapproval for the 
purchase of the Province of Maine from the heirs of Sir 
Ferdinando Gorges for twelve hundred pounds (The price paid 
was £1250) and asks that upon reimbursement of what had been 
paid out there be a surrender of all deeds and writings pertain- 
ing thereto, "for as much as Wee were sometime in treaty for 
the said province and doe disapprove what you have done 


therein." The conclusion blasted all their hopes of extension 
of territory and political power. "And as for that part of the 
province of Newhampshire lying Three miles Northward of 
Merrimack River, which was granted unto Mr. Mason, and 
whereof the Government still remains vested in Us, you are 
not to expect (according to the desire of your Agents) that the 
same should be annexed to your Government, flfor Wee have it 
under Our consideration, how to establish such method there 
as may be oi most benefit and satisfaction to Our good subjects 
of that place. And therefore Our will and pleasure is that you 
doe recall all Commissions granted by you for Governing within 
that province, which Wee do hereby declare to be void, and 
doe require that you doe in all things for the future conforme 
your selves unto the Resolution which Wee have taken in this 
behalf. And soe not doubting of your Duty and Obedience herein 
Wee bid you farewell." 

Disappointed, snubbed, checked in their chosen path of 
ambition, forced to be tolerant in religion, reprimanded for 
craftiness, shorn of their assumed prerogatives, why did not 
Massachusetts then rebel and not wait another century? Simply 
because they were not strong enough, were divided in opinions 
among themselves, had not the support of the other American 
colonies, and were not of the thrice-arrned who have their 
quarrel just. Therefore they submitted with what grace they 
could, while the clericals poured out their spite upon Edward 
Randolph. Vaulting ambition had o'erleaped itself. The dream 
of an ecclesiastical oligarchy, called a theocracy, had vanished. 

A report had been made to the king, July 2. 1679, ^^^^ "the 
Corporation of the Massachusetts Bay had no right either to 
soil or Government beyond 3 miles to the Northward of Merri- 
mack River, nor to the Soil nor Proprietie of any lands lying 
between the rivers of Naumkeck and Merrimack, and that all 
grants, titles and alienations of the said lands made by them 
or by any authoritie derived from them to bee absolutely void 
and declared illegall." It was also decided by the best legal 
authority that the title to land must be tried on the place, there 
being no court in England that had cognizance thereof, and thus 
a new jurisdiction had to be established in New Hampshire 
in order to try the Masonian claims, while the settlers between 
the Naumkeag and three miles north of the Merrimack rivers 


were left to defend their titles in Massachusetts courts, evi- 
dently prejudiced against Mr. Mason and his heirs. The futility 
of any attempt to recover lands there v^as so apparent that the 
heirs of Mason never made an effort to collect quit-rent or 
oust the tenants of Cape Ann and vicinity. Mason's legal 
claim to land there wsls just as good as it was in New Hampshire, 
but his enemies had jurisdiction. His heirs hoped that with 
the aid of king and judges in old England and with a new 
government set up by the king in New Hampshire they might 
get recognition of the justice of their claim and thus gain 
something for the twenty-two thousand pounds, that, as they 
asserted, had been spent in the development of the colony. That 
was an extravagant estimate, even if the expense of the planta- 
tion at Newichawannock were taken into account. 

In order to smooth the way for an agreement, between 
Robert Mason and the settlers of New Hampshire royal 
authority had so composed matters with Mason that up to the 
twenty-fourth day of June, 1679, ^^ relinquished all claim or 
demand for "any rent, dues, or arrears whatsoever, and for 
the future he, his Heirs or Assigns shall receive only Six pence 
in the Pound yearly of every Tenant by way of Quit Rent 
according to the true 8z just yearly value of what is improved 
by Any of the Inhabitants." 

chapter IV 


chapter IV 


King Philip's War — Encroachments of the Settlers — Indian Atrocities — 
Savagery versus Civilization — Passaconaway and Wonalancet — First 
Blow Struck at Oyster River — John Robinson of Exeter Slain — Attack on 
Salmon Falls — Four Slain in Hampton — Sham Fight at Cochecho — 
Indians Sold into Slavery — Condemnation of the Treachery — The Indi- 
ans Simon and Andrew — Expedition against Eastern Indians — Scruples 
about Employing Mohawks as Allies — Treaty of Casco — What Nine 
Indians Say — How Indians Got Arms — Losses and Cost of the War — 
The Praying Indians of Natick Cruel Fighters of the English. 

THE story of King Philip's War has been told too many 
times to be repeated here at length. Most of its events 
had little or nothing to do with the history of New Hampshire. 
Much must be left to the historians of Massachusetts and of 
Maine. The settlers of New Hampshire lived at peace with the 
Indians, traded with them and bought land of them for over half 
a century before any trouble arose. There were acts of injustice 
on the part of individuals here and there. Wars result from 
the crimes and ambitions of the few rather than of the masses. 
The Indians were cheated in trades and in purchase of lands, 
as the ignorant are generally cheated by those who have superior 
knowledge. They sold whole townships and counties for a few 
trifles that might well have been given to them in token of 
friendship. In such sales they did not imagine that they would 
be excluded from the lands sold, and sometimes they stipulated in 
deeds that the old privileges of hunting and fishing should remain 
to them. They parted with tons of beaver skins and other 
valuable peltry for a blanket, a gun, a string of beads, and some 
fire-water. Thus the white traders grew rich at the expense of 
the Indians. Gradually the eyes of the redmen were opened to 
see that their ancient possessions were taken from them and 
enclosed by fences ; that villages sprung up on their old corn- 
fields ; that saw-mills drove the fish from their waterfalls; and 
that the clearing of the forests chased their deer away. They 
were pushed back further into the woods and crowded upon hos- 


tile tribes. Both French and English stirred them up to war 
upon one another. Rough and rascally fishermen and hunters 
committed outrages upon their women and children, the report 
of which traveled far and was remembered long. England and 
France carried their quarrels into the wilds of the new world, 
furnished weapons to the redmen and led them as allies to the 
burning of houses and the massacre of men, women and children. 
The Indians were not more cruel than the white men. At that 
very time atrocities were being committed in Ireland, between 
religious factions, that would put to shame the Indians for their 
lack of refined barbarity, for there noses and ears were cut off, 
men and women were stripped naked and turned out in the winter 
cold, and the road to Dublin was lined with corpses. The 
Indians sometimes tortured their captives in the spirit of retalia- 
tion, especially when crazed by the white man's drink, but they 
never invented such instruments of torture as were used by the 
Inquisitors. The Indians never forgot an injustice and they were 
equally mindful of a kindness. To their honor it should be said 
that there is no record that in the treatment of captive women 
they ever violated the laws of chastity. It was French gold that 
persuaded them to take away women and children. 

On the other hand it is foolish to contend that the scanty 
tribes of Indians owned the soil and forests of all New England, 
yea, of all the continent, as some affirm. The principle stated by 
some rulers in Massachusetts, that the Indians had a valid claim 
only to the land that they improved, seems to be sound and just. 
Savagery ought to give way to civilization. They who utilize the 
soil should have it. Men are entitled to the fruits of their labors, 
and that which exists and grows without labor is the common 
property of all. 

Old Passaconaway, chief of the Penacook tribe, saw that the 
white men must become the conquerors and cautioned his people 
to let them alone and live peaceably with them. His son, 
Wonalancet, followed his advice. Sagamore Rowls, of Newich- 
awannock, was a friend to the settlers. These were not strong 
enough to prevent others from digging up the hatchet. King 
Philip's War served to unite the tribes all along the frontier in 
an effort to exterminate the pale faces. A common love of home 
and native land and a common desire for fighting and plunder 
made them act just like Europeans, when moved by the same 



It is unfortunate that no history of the early Indian wars 
was written by an Indian. What a heartrending- and frightful 
story an Indian Hubbard would have told of the aggressions of 
the Yengees — how they fell upon the sleeping bands of redmen 
and shot them before they had an opportunity to resist, how 
squaws and papooses were sometimes killed without mercy, how 
many wigwams and entire villages were burned, how much 
plunder the enemy carried off, how many were captured through 
treachery and hanged in Boston or sold into slavery in the West 
Indies, never to return. Detailed reports, exaggerated by all the 
arts of rhetoric, we may now read of the bad deeds of the 
Indians ; no sachem has left a record of the equally numerous and 
cruel deeds of the whitemen. Civilized warfare was then as un- 
known as it is now among Turks, Bulgarians, Greeks, Serbians, 
Austrians and Germans, when they are bent on vengeance and 
conquest. When hatred is aroused civilized people forget the 
art of concealing that they are savages. Especially "the 
heathen" have no rights that men only veneered with Christian 
civilization feel bound to respect, and sacred books are quoted to 
make murder and robbery in time of war appear as duties. War 
under any conditions is the worst thing imaginable except 
slavery ; between ignorant and savage tribes it is hate and cruelty 
intensified ; when waged by relig-ious bigots it is worse than 
Dante's Inferno. 

The first blow struck in New Hampshire was in September, 
1675, at Oyster River. The Indians burned two houses and 
killed two men, William Roberts and his son-in-law.^ Roberts 
lived on the south side of the river, about two miles below the 
falls. There is no record that any of his neighbors were dis- 
turbed, and Roberts might have been away from home at the 
time. Soon after William Beard, a very good old man, was slain 
outside of his garrison, on the north side of the river, half a mile 
from the Falls. The Indians cut off his head and set it up on a 
pole in derision ; or this may have been done in retaliation. Hub- 
bard says that the queen of Pacasset was found naked and dead 

1 This is on the authority of the Rev. Jabez Fitch of Portsmouth, who 
left in manuscript a brief history of New Hampshire, from which Belknap 
drew all that was of any value. The son-in-law above mentioned is more 
likely to have been William Roberts Jr. The two bound volumes of Fitch's 
manuscript are in the possession of the Mass. Hist. Society, through whose 
courtesy the author was permitted to read them. 


by the waterside. "Her head being cut off and set upon a pole in 
Taunton was known by some Indians then prisoners, which set 
them in a horrid lamentation." So perhaps good man Beard had 
to suffer because of the evil deeds of whitemen in Massachu- 
setts. Two houses belonging to the Chesley family were burned, 
and two men sailing along the river were killed. An old Irish- 
man and a young man were captured at the same time, but they 
soon found a way of escape. 

In November, 1675, John Robinson of Exeter, blacksmith, 
who had removed to that place fromi Haverhill, Massachusetts, 
and his son were waylaid by three Indians, while they were on 
their way to Hampton. The father was shot dead; the son ran 
into a neighboring swamp and, although pursued, succeeded in 
reaching Hampton at midnight. The next day Lieutenant Ben- 
jamin Swett with about a dozen soldiers searched the woods and 
found the body of the murdered man, shot in his back. Captain 
Benjamin Swett afterward led a company of soldiers in the de- 
fense of the fort at Black Point, Scarborough, and in a fight was 
cut down by tomahawks after having been wounded twenty 
times. Probate records show that the above named John Robin- 
son was killed the tenth of the ninth month, 1675. About the 
same time Charles Randlet, or Rundlet, of Exeter, was captured 
and soon escaped. There was a plot to burn the house of 
Thomas Sleeper, on the easterly frontier of Hampton, but the 
sculking Indian was shot in the act of setting the fire. The at- 
tack on Tozier's garrison at upper Newichawannock has been 
often told — how a maiden held the front door while fifteen per- 
sons were escaping by the rear and how she was knocked on the 
head with a tomahawk and left for dead, only to recover and live 
many years, unknown by name to fame — how Lieutenant Roger 
Plaisted and son lost their lives in an unequal fight with many 
savages — all these details may be seen in histories of Maine. 

Late in 1675 peace was concluded with the Indians, only to 
be broken the following year. Some captives were restored to 
their homes. On the sixteenth of April, 1677, the house of John 
Kenniston was burned at Greenland and he was slain. Two 
months later, June 13th, the enemy again appeared in Hampton 
and killed four men, Edward Colcord. Jr., Abraham Perkins, Jr., 
Benjamin Hilliard and Caleb Towle. All the people of the four 
towns of New Hampshire flocked to garrisons, whence issued 


parties of volunteers, who sometimes surprised the Indians in 
return. One such party from Dover came upon five Indians 
gathering corn and roasting it. Tw^o of the Indians were 
knocked on the head with muskets and the other three ran away. 
It was in September, 1676, that four hundred Indians as- 
sembled at Cochecho about the residence of Major Richard Wal- 
derne, on a peaceful errand, under the leadership of the friendly 
Sagamore. Wonalancet. Mixed with them were some Indians 
from the south, who had committed offenses, and it was the wish 
of the Massachusetts authorities to bring them to justice — to 
justice as interpreted by the whitemen, whose rules of warfare 
were somewhat different from those of the redmen. Captain 
William Hathorne, of Salem, and Captain Joseph Sill, of Cam- 
bridge, were sent to Cochecho with two companies of soldiers, 
and Major Charles Frost, of Kittery, was present with his force. 
The Indians considered themselves safe under the protection of 
Major Walderne, even those who had been in the campaign with 
King Philip. But Hathorne and Sill had orders from the Massa- 
chusetts government to seize all southern Indians wherever they 
might be found. Major Walderne thought that any attempt to 
do so would result in much bloodshed, and so he proposed what 
has been called a stratagem, smce "all is fair in love and war," a 
-doctrine very popular with the unscrupulous. He arranged with 
the Indians to have a sham fight, as some writers say, although 
the historians of that time say nothing about a sham fight, but 
make mention of a training. One writer says that the dread of 
the Mohawks from the west drove the eastern Indians to confer 
with Major Walderne, and it is well known that the English at 
that time and later tried to induce those wild and relentless sav- 
ages to make war on the Indians of the east. In the midst of the 
sham fight or training, when the Indians had discharged their 
guns, the white forces surrounded and captured the Indians and 
disarmed them, before the latter were aware of designs against 
them. The friendly Indians under Wonalancet were soon set at 
liberty, but the rest, to the number of about two hundred, were 
sent to Boston, where six or seven were tried and hanged for past 
offenses, while many others were sold into slavery, some going 
to the Fayal Islands. Some escaped and found their way back 
to New England, and the narration of their experiences did not 
help to preserve peace and create good will among the Indians. 


Thirteen years later they had their balances of justice properly 

Among the colonial papers recently copied from the Eng-lish 
archives are some articles of high misdemeanor charged against 
Major Richard Walderne by Robert Mason. One is as fol- 
lows : — "The said Waldern hath caused many Indians to be bar- 
barously and perfidiously slain in time of peace, whereby many 
English were killed." This charge was made November 13, 1681. 
In another paper it is said that "the said Waldern, about the year 
1677, after the peace concluded with the Indians, did invite the 
Indians that lived in the said province to settle near his house, 
professed great kindness toward them, built them a ffort, and 
entertained them about fourteen days, with victuals and strong 
drink. In the meantime he got 200 Souldiers and seized them 
all, whereof seven of the principall were hanged and about 200 
sold for slaves (whereof many had never been in arms) to the 
great scandall of the Christian religion, which was the occasion 
of many English being killed." Here we have the testimony and 
opinion of a man who had every opportunity of learning the facts 
in the case. To be sure Mason was writing about his opponent, 
but he stated only what was well known and admitted by Wal- 
derne's friends. The only excuse ever offered was military neces- 
sity, the need of getting the better of the enemy at any sacrifice of 
honor and moral principle. It has been said also that Walderne 
and Frost were subordinate to the commands of the General Court 
of Massachusetts, thus trying to shift the responsibility. The 
whole scheme is perfectly in harmony with Major Walderne's 
character as shown in his treatment of the Quakers. The per- 
fidious manner of arrest was his own device, and Hathorne, Sill 
and Frost aided in its execution. The historian Hubbard has 
no word of moral reproval for the deed. As a Puritan minister 
he was well acquainted with casuistry, "the art of quibbling with 
God." To him any course seemed justifiable that punished the 
enemy and protected the settlers. When Indians were slain or 
enslaved, it was the righteous retribution of God. It mattered 
little that this foul act was perpetrated after peace had been 
agreed to. 

What ought to be said about such an act? .Shall the old 
motto be followed, De mortuis nil nisi bonum? Shall the silent 
robe of charity be thrown over the misdeeds of the past? ShaH 


we lightly conclude with Hubbard that these two hundred In- 
dians, captured by fraud while under a flag of truce, "were sent into- 
other Parts of the World, to try the Difference between the Friend- 
ship of their Neighbors here and their Service with other Masters 
elsewhere"? Shall we say with the Puritans of that time that it 
was the judgment of God upon the cruel savages and appeal to 
the Old Testament for justification? Shall we excuse treachery 
in retaliation for treachery? Shall we expose to view the sins of 
the fathers? If not, how shall the sons learn to do better? 

We must conclude that it was a base and wicked act. The 
conscience of the Indian was acute enough to see that, and he 
never interpreted it in any other way. It was a foolish and dan- 
gerous act. The subsequent retaliations prove this. New 
England got rid of a few bad Indians, and many good 
Indians were made enemies by this act of injustice and betrayal. 
They pursued the policy of "watchful waiting" till they cut 
Major Walderne into pieces upon his own table and shot Major 
Frost as he rode home from meeting, at Ambush Rock. There 
was no city of refuge to which they might flee and be safe from 
the avenger. The Indians never transferred the responsibility to 
the Massachusetts authorities, and they seem to have been the 
best judges in this case. All the honor in this event belongs to 
them. They turned about the saying of a modern general and 
acted as though they believed that "the only good pale-face is a 
dead pale-face." 

A little later Indians, named Simon and Andrew, were con- 
cerned in the killing of Thomas Kimball, of Bradford, Massa- 
chusetts, and carried away his wife and five children. The wife 
and children, for some unknown reason, were returned within 
six weeks, perhaps to thus pave the way for peace. Simon and 
Andrew were put into prison at Dover, whence they made their 
escape, fearing worse punishment. They joined the Androscog- 
gin and Kennebec Indians and did all the injury they could to 
the settlers in Maine. This, from the Indian point of view, was 
honorable warfare, but they were "heathen." Hubbard relates 
that Simon and Andrew later came into Portsmouth and burnt 
a house within four or five miles of the town and took a maid 
and a young woman captive, one of whom had a young child in 
her arms. She was permitted to leave the child with an old 
woman, "whom the Indian Simon spared because he said she had 


been kind to his grandmother" — not a very bad Indian after all. 
Soon after three more were slain by Indians in the woods near 
Portsmouth, one of whom was riding to alarm the town. Simon 
next surprised six of the friendly Indians, whom he found drunk 
in the woods. It was this same Simon who took captive 
Anthony Brackett and family at Casco and spared them all, yet 
Hubbard calls him "an arch traitor." 

Belknap says that the perfidious act of Walderne and com- 
pany in capturing the Indians in the sham fight "was highly ap- 
plauded by the general voice of the colony." We wish the 
Quakers had handed down their opinion of the act. Two days 
afterward the forces under Walderne and Frost proceeded east- 
ward against the Indians, who were causing alarm everywhere. 
Blind Will, a Sagamore, who lived near Cochecho, and eight of 
his men acted as pilots or guides through the forests. They 
found the settlements destroyed or deserted and so returned 

The Sagamore Mogg gave out the report that many Indians 
were at their fort near the Ossipee ponds, and an expedition was 
sent against them. Some English carpenters had built a fort for 
the Indians as a defense against the dreaded Mohawks. The ex- 
pedition returned after nine days, not having seen an Indian. It 
was the first of November, but the snow was deep, the ponds 
were frozen and the way was rough. 

In 1677 an expedition, consisting of two hundred men, sixty 
of them being Natick Indians, sailed from Boston, under com- 
mand of Major Richard Walderne, against the eastern Indians. 
He had a skirmish at Casco, built a fort on the Kennebec, and 
had a narrow escape from capture at Pemequid, where he 
thought he discerned treachery at a conference with the Indians. 
A fight ensued and seven Indians were killed, among them being 
the sagamore "Matthando with an old Powaw, to whom the 
Devil had revealed, as sometime he did to Saul, that on the same 
day he should be with him ; for he had a little before told the 
Indians that within two days the English would come and kill 
them all, which was at the very same time verified upon himself," 
as Hubbard says. On this marauding expedition the English 
took much plunder from the Indians, a thousand pounds of dried 
beef and between thirty and forty bushels of good wheat, one or 
two great guns and some anchors from Sagadahock, and a hun- 


dred thousand feet of boards from Arrowsick. It pays to ex- 
terminate the heathen, although modern missionaries would have 
converted them at far less expense. Only thirteen Indians were 
killed on this expedition, without the loss of a whiteman. 

Some had qualms of conscience and thought that it was 
wicked to employ the fierce Mohawks to kill off the eastern 
Indians, but their scruples were quieted on being reminded that 
Abraham made alliance with the Amorites for the rescue of his 
kinsman. Lot. Two agents were sent to incite the Mohawks to 
war. The latter came on to near Cochecho, whence Blind Will 
and seven other Indians were sent out to parley with them. 
Blind Will was wounded, dragged away by the hair and perished 
in the woods. Only two or three of his companions escaped. It 
was learned that the Mohawks planned to kill all eastern Indians, 
whether they were friendly or hostile to the English. The 
friendly Indians, learning this, mistrusted their English neigh- 
bors and listened to the seductions of the French, who in a few 
years made use of them to scourge the settlers. Thus the em- 
ployment of western Indians against eastern Indians made all 
the Indians of Maine and New Hampshire hostile and was the 
source of many calamities. 

In the spring of 1678 Major Nicholas Shapleigh, Captain 
Francis Champernowne and Mr. Nathaniel Fryer were appointed 
commissioners to make a treaty of peace with Squando, the saga- 
more of Saco, and other chiefs. This was effected at Casco, and 
the Indians there brought in their captives and surrendered 
them. The treaty stipulated that a tribute should be paid to the 
Indians annually of one peck of corn for each family, as a sort of 
ground rent for the use of their land, and that one bushel should 
be paid for Major Bryan Pendleton, who then owned a large 
tract of land near the mouth of Saco river. Was this the begin- 
ning of our national policy of dealing out rations and clothing to 
western Indians, in order to keep them contented? Is it tribute 
or belated payment of ground rent? 

The wish has been expressed that we might hear the In- 
dians' side of the story. Here is a little fragment of it. In 1677 
a document was signed by nine Abenaki Indians. They say, 
"Because there was war at Narragansett, you came here when we 
were quiet and took away our guns and made prisoners of our 
chief sagamores ; and that winter, for want of our guns, there 


was several starved. Is it your fashion to come and make peace 
and then kill us? Major Waldin do lie; we were not minded 
to kill anybody ; he give us drink, and when we were drunk, 
killed us." 

Belknap says that arms had been supplied to the Indians by 
Baron de Castine, but it is well to listen to Edward Randolph in 
his report to the Council of Trade. He says that the government 
of Massachusetts in 1657 sought to monopolize the Indian trade 
in furs and peltry. Nobody could trade with them without a 
license, and such as were licensed could sell to the Indians 
guns, swords, powder and shot, paying to the government three 
shillings for every gun sold, three shillings for a dozen swords, 
six pence for a pound of powder and six pence for every ten 
pounds of shot. Thus^the Indians got their arms and ammuni- 
tion, and the government got some revenue and the massacre 
of its frontier families. He says that in King Philip's War 
about six hundred men and twelve captains were slain out of 
the ranks of the colonists, "whilst the church members had 
liberty to stay at home and not hazard their persons in the 
wilderness." Moreover, the settlers had twelve hundred houses 
burned, eight thousand cattle killed and many thousand 
bushels of grain destroyed, making the loss of property equal 
to one hundred and fifty thousand pounds. The Indians lost 
their homes, their lands, about all their property, and three thou- 
sand men, women and children killed. King Philip was robbed 
of Mount Hope, driven into the swamp and hunted down like a 
fugitive slave. Randolph mentions among the causes of the war 
that the Indians had been taught to love strong drink to the ex- 
tent that "they would strip themselves to the skin to have their 
fill of rum and brandy." The Massachusetts government made 
a law that every drunken Indian should pay a fine of ten shillings 
or be whipped, and many of the poor wretches offered their 
bare backs to the lash because they were unwilling or unable to 
pay the fines. Since no profit accrued to the government from 
whipping, the law was changed, substituting for whipping ten 
days' work, which the Indians resented more than the whipping. 
Randolph says, too, that the praying Indians of Natick were 
taught to use arms and were exercised as trained bands, under 
officers of their own. They learned to watch and fight as well 
as pray and were "the most barbarous and cruel enemies to the 


English above any other Indians, Captain Tom, their leader, 
being lately taken and hanged at Boston with one other of their 
chiefs." These praying Indian chiefs were supposedly among 
the number kidnapped by Major Walderne at Dover.2 

2N. H. Prov. Papers, Vol. I, pp. 339-345. 

chapter V 


chapter V 


Jurisdiction of Massachusetts Inhibited — John Cutt First President — The 
Council a Court of Record — Liberty of Conscience Allowed only to 
Protestants— Defect of the Commission — Sketches of First Councilors — 
Address to General Court of Massachusetts — Conflict with Heirs of 
Mason — Superstition — First Laws — Sixteen Crimes Punishable with 
Death — Wearing of Capital Letters — Conditions of Becoming Freemen 
— Laws of New Hampshire Disallowed by England — Later Code — Ran- 
dolph and Barefoot again — Robert Mason as "Lord Proprietor" — • 
Richard Chamberlain Secretary — Condition of the Province in 1670-80. 

THE royal commission for the government of New Hamp- 
shire, similar to the government of Virginia and New 
York, is dated September 18, 1679. ^^ recounts that the authori- 
ties of Massachusetts had illegally taken upon themselves to 
organize a government and exercise jurisdiction over the inhabi- 
tants of Portsmouth, Hampton, Dover, Exeter and other places 
north of their true boundary, which was three miles north of the 
Merrimack river. Such jurisdiction is inhibited and restrained. 
The government of New Hampshire had never been granted to 
any person or persons whatsoever. For the protection and de- 
fense of the rights, liberties and properties of the inhabitants and 
that impartial justice may be administered the king appoints a 
president and council, naming John Cutt, Esq., of Portsmouth, as 
first president, and as councilors Richard Martyn, William 
Vaughan and Thomas Daniel of Portsmouth, John Oilman of 
Exeter, Christopher Hussey of Hampton and Richard Walderne 
of Dover. These together were authorized to make choice of 
three more councilors. The president was given authority to 
choose his deputy from the members of the council, and the 
president or his deputy and five councilors constituted a quorum. 
Nobody could sit and vote in the council till he had taken the 
following oath of allegiance: — 

You shall swear well and truly to administer justice to all his Majesty's 
subjects inhabiting within ye Province of New Hampshire, under this 



government : and also duly and faithfully to discharge and execute the 
Trust in you reposed according to the best of your knowledge. You shall 
spare no person for favor or affection, nor any person grieve for hatred 
or ill will. So help you God. 

The president and council thus appointed were required by 
the commission to meet within twenty days after its arrival, "all 
excuses whatsoever set aside." They were constituted a court 
of record, for administration of justice in civil and criminal cases 
according- to the laws and customs of England, with right of ap- 
peal to the king and his privy council in any case concerning 
title to land or other real estate, or in any personal action or 
suit above the value of fifty pounds, every appellant giving good 
security to pay the costs, should the case be decided against him. 
In criminal cases no person could be deprived of life or limb 
without consent of the king and council, the case of wilful mur- 
der excepted. The president and council of New Hampshire 
were empowered to commission officers of the militia, who 
should repel attacks of the enemy. Liberty of conscience was 
expressly allowed to all Protestants, and the rites of the Church 
of England were to be particularly countenanced and encour- 
aged. Taxes were to be levied as usual in the best manner pos- 
sible, until a general assembly of the province be called and other 
method agreed upon. Such general assembly was to be sum- 
moned to meet within three months, who should make such acts, 
laws and ordinances as should be most for the public good, sub- 
ject to the approval of the president and council and to be in 
force till the pleasure of the king and his council were known to 
the contrary. A transcript of all laws made was to be sent to the 
king by the first ship departing for England. In case of the 
death of a councilor the rest of the council should nominate three 
persons and send their names to the king, who would choose one 
of the three to fill the vacancy. The commission, moreover, 
recognized the rightful claims of Robert Mason as proprietor of 
the lands granted to his grandfather, and the president and coun- 
cil were urged to reconcile all differences of claimants, if pos- 
sible, and if not, to send statement of such cases to the king, to- 
gether with their own opinions. The weak part of this commis- 
sion, which was equivalent to a constitution, was the following: — 

We do hereby declare, that We, our heirs and successors, shall and 


will observe and continue this method of grace and favor towards our 
loving subjects, in convening them in their Assembly, in such manner and 
form as is hereinbefore mentioned and provided, unless, by inconvenience 
arising from thence, We, our heirs or successors, shall see cause to alter 
the same. 

This was a gift with a string to it. The same power that 
could give could take away. The representatives of the people 
could be dismissed at the wish of the king. They were free to 
do his will, not their own. So long as his will and theirs coin- 
cided, all would be well for both. In any event his will must be 
done. This was unlimited monarchy concealed under the form 
of a representative government. Under a wise and benevolent 
sovereign such a form of government was well adapted to the 
wishes of the colonists, who preferred, as Canada and Australia 
now prefer, to retain a governmental connection with the mother 
country. In reality all people prefer to govern themselves, to 
be independent of the control of others, but since they need the 
help of others for protection and prosperity, civilized people will 
submit to be indirectly governed, and often they submit long to 
misgovernment rather than imperil the small amount of liberty 
they have. 

There were wisdom and cunning in the choice of the presi- 
dent and council. All of them were Puritans and in favor of the 
jurisdiction of Massachusetts. They were the leading men of 
their towns simply because those who differed from them could 
not get themselves appointed to positions of power. The king's 
council had not been duped. They knew well the character of 
the men named in the commission. They knew that the appoint- 
ment of these men would create less friction and discontent than 
the appointment of churchmen and royalists. After the new 
form of government had been once accepted, it would be easy to 
make changes in the composition of the council. Doubtless the 
men named in the commission were surprised and the political 
leaders of Massachusetts smiled grimly, when the names were 
first heard. Some of the men appointed at first refused to qualify 
as councilors and were minded to reject the office and honor 
conferred, namely, Richard Walderne and Richard Martyn, but 
concluding that if they did not serve in the council other men 
might be appointed who would be less favorable to their inter- 


€sts and more inclined to admit the claims of Robert Mason, re- 
luctantly took their seats in the council after the limit of twenty- 
days had nearly expired. At first they were in favor of rejecting 
the plan of the king- outright, but John Cutt was less headstrong 
and purposed to obey orders. The commission was brought to 
Portsmouth by Edward Randolph on the first day of January, 
1680; the councilors took their oaths of office on the twenty-first 
of January, and the commission was published the next day. 
It is probable that the names were suggested in London by Rob- 
ert Mason or Edward Randolph in a conciliatory spirit, thinking 
thus to content the opponents of Mason and win them to obedi- 
ence to the king's wishes. The council chose three others to sit 
with them, according to instructions of the commission, and 
these were Elias Stileman of Great Island, Samuel Dalton of 
Hampton and Job Clements of Dover. Something more about 
these men may be of interest. 

President John Cutt was reputed to be the wealthiest man in 
the province. He lived in the Great House, where his brother, 
Richard Cutt, had lived till his death in 1676, and he owned the 
greater part of the lands connected therewith, the old Straw- 
berry Bank. The Combination of 1640 had a way of making 
grants of Mason's property to suit themselves, and as usual to 
him that had was given. The wealthiest got the best lands and 
the largest quantities. John Cutt and his brother Richard served 
often as selectmen, and their sons-in-law were sharers with them 
of political power. These w^ere Richard Waldron, Jr., Samuel 
Penhallow, William Vaughan and Thomas Daniel, all men of 
wealth and station. Richard Cutt was deputy to the General 
Court of Massachusetts six terms and associate judge. In the 
division of lands in 1663 John Cutt had four hundred acres, the 
largest allotment, and Richard Cutt had three hundred and fifty 
acres. John Cutt was inclined to admit the claims of Mason and 
was willing to compensate him for the lands he enjoyed. There 
is no record that he ever did so. He died April 5, 1681, at an ad- 
vanced age. His surname has been perpetuated by the descend- 
ants of his brother, Robert Cutt, or Cutts, a wealthy ship-builder 
of Kittery. 

Richard Martyn received an allotment of sixty-two acres of 
land in Portsmouth in 1660. His first wife was a daughter of 
Richard Cutt, and that is enough to account for his prominence. 

A HISTORY ' 107 

He served several years as selectman and twice as deputy to the 
General Court of Massachusetts. He was the first treasurer of 
the royal province, being removed from office in 1683 by Gov- 
ernor Cranfield. He was sued by Cranfield and by Mason for 
the fines and forfeitures received by him as treasurer and dis- 
tributed for the government of the province with the approval of 
the council. The decision against him by the council of New 
Hampshire was reversed by the king's council on appeal. He 
was appointed judge of the court of common pleas and later was 
chief justice of the supreme court of judicature, holding this 
office till his death, April 2, 1694. His second wife was Mary, 
widow of John Denison and daughter of Samuel Symonds of 
Ipswich. His third wife was widow of Samuel Wentworth. He 
left sons, Michael and Nathaniel, and three daughters, Sarah 
who married John Cutt, Hannah who married Richard Jose, and 
Elizabeth who married Edward Kennard. That he was opposed 
to the claims of Mason and to the royal government appears by 
the following depositions, made April 7, 1681 : — 

John Rand and John Bickford of Oyster River testified "that in 
ffebruary last they with several others came to Portsmouth to agree with 
Mr. Mason for a confirmation of their lands; they met with Richard 
Martin, one of the Councill, who dissuaded them from going to Mr. Mason 
and did tell them that neither the King nor Mr. Mason had no more 
right to any lands in New England than Robin Hood, and that the Councill 
were resolved to oppose him." 

Joseph Smith of Oyster River testified that "about the beginning of 
March last he heard Richard Martin Esqr, one of the Councill, to say 
That the King had nothing to doe in this province nor could grant any 
lands therein." 

William Vaughan is said to have been a Welshman, bred in 
London under the care of Sir Josiah Child. He is first mentioned 
in Portsmouth in 1666, then being a merchant of distinction. He 
married, December 8, 1668, Margaret, daughter of Richard Cutt, 
by whom he had two sons and six daughters. He sat as justice 
and judge. Not being in harmony with Governor Cranfield, he 
was imprisoned by the latter and remained in confinement on 
Great Island nine months, whence he wrote a long and illuminat- 
ing letter. Again he became a member of the council and in 1693 
was appointed treasurer. He also served as recorder, major in 


the militia, and chief justice of the superior court, serving from 
1708 till 1716. He died in 1719. 

Thomas Daniel appears in Portsmouth in 1669 as a juryman. 
He served as selectman six years and is called captain in 1676, 
when he was one of the commissioners to make peace with the 
eastern Indians. He was associate judge in Portsmouth and in 
York county. He died in November, 1683, and his widow, who 
was Bridget, daughter of Capt. Richard Cutt, married Thomas 
Graffort. There is no record of any children. 

John Gilman of Exeter, was a son of Edward Oilman of 
Hingham, England, who came to Boston in 1638. He was 
elected a selectman more than a dozen times, commissioner, lot- 
layer, surveyor of town line, captain and associate judge before 
being nominated as councilor. He had a grant of two hundred 
acres of land in 1652, an exclusive grant of water for his grist- 
mill in 1670. another grant of six hundred acres in 1674 and a 
hundred more in 1702, so that he cannot be blamed for steady 
opposition to the claims of Robert Mason and heirs. He was 
speaker of the House in 1697 and again a delegate to the As- 
sembly in 1697. He married Elizabeth, daughter of James Tre- 
worgy and had six sons and ten daughters. He died July 24, 
1707, aged 84. Among his descendants have been many dis- 
tinguished men. 

Christopher Hussey was born at Dorking, in Surrey, Eng- 
land. He married Theodate, daughter of the Rev. Stephen 
Bachiler, and came to Lynn in 1630, whence he removed to New- 
bury and later to Hampton. He was one of the most prominent 
men of Hampton, serving as justice of the peace, lot-layer, mod- 
erator of town meetings, town clerk and selectman. He was 
deputy or representative of the town to the General Court of 
Massachusetts in 1658-60. Two hundred and fifty acres of land 
were granted to him. He is called lieutenant and captain. 
Mason won a suit against him, and he was imprisoned, where he 
was forbidden to work and forced to live on the charity of his 
friends. He is said to have been cast away on the coast of 
Florida in 1685, then eighty-seven years old. The family has 
been well represented in Quaker annals. 

Richard Waldern, as he spelled his name, was born in Alces- 
ter, Warwickshire, about 161 5. He came to Dover Neck in 1635 
and there purchased land of Capt. Thomas Wiggin. Then he 


went back to England, married and returned before 1640, settling 
at Cochecho Falls. Here he built mills and had large grants of 
land. He may be regarded as the founder of the city of Dover. 
He built the meeting house on Dover Neck in 1654. He was six 
times deputy to General Court from Dover, once from Saco and 
once from Kittery, and seven times he was elected speaker of 
the House of Representatives. He was an associate or magis- 
trate in both Norfolk and York counties. As a military man he 
is most famous, serving as captain and major and commanding 
expeditions against the Indians. We have already noticed the 
part he took in the first Indian war and also his persecution of 
the Quaker women. We shall have occasion to speak of him 
often as a member and vice president of the council and opponent 
of the claims of Robert Mason. He was strongly in favor of the 
jurisdiction of Massachusetts, and the honors conferred upon 
him gave him good reason to support the claims of that govern- 
ment. The following depositions throw some light upon the 
spirit in which he acted and his great influence in political 
matters : — 

April 7, 1681. Philip Chesey [Chesley] of Oyster River testified that 
in the year 1665 Major Walderne did say unto him, "You are one of 
those that petition to have kingly government. You shall have a king and 
I will be your king," and he hath ever since oppressed the inhabitants. 

John Michelmore of Oyster River testified that "major Waldern in 
the month of ffebruary last said unto him, You Michelmore, you have been 
with Mr. Mason for a confirmation of yor Lands, for which I will smoke 
you over the Coales." 

Robert Watson of Oyster River testified that "Major Waldern in 
ffebruary last in the town of Dover did advise severall people not to agree 
with Mr. Mason for confirmation of their lands, upon hopes there might 
be alteration of the government in England, and further said that if he 
w-ere disposessed of his lands by the powers now in England yet he was 
certain upon the change of government he should be restored." 

May 8, 1681. William flforbes [Furbish] of Newichawannock [upper 
Kittery] testified that "about two years since he being at the house of 
Joseph Hammond in the towne of Kittery in the province of Maine Major 
Waldern, now one of the Councill, took out of his pockett a paper which 
he read, being in derision of the government of England, and after some 
discourse said these words. There was no more a king in England than 
thou, Richard Nason, unto whom he then spoke."i 

He was fined five pounds for mutinous and seditious words 

1 Colonial Papers, Vol. XLVI, No. 118. Manuscript copy in library of 
N. H. Hist. Soc'y. 


and was prosecuted and fined ten pounds for the following- lan- 
guage, as affirmed by Robert Mason, Richard Chamberlain and 
Joseph Raynes : — 

Upon the third day of May 1681, Richard Waldron, Esq., of Cochecho, 
then Deputy President of this Province, did, upon ye said day above writt, 
at Strawberry Bank, declare about ye King's letter, then newly brought 
over by Robert Mason Esq., that they were not ye more bound to believe 
it because the King had writt it." 

He evidently continued to speak against the king and his 
authority, for in 1685 he was arrested as a perturber of the peace. 
After this he remained without office. The manner of his death 
will be told in another chapter.^ 

Elias Stileman, born about 161 7, was son of Elias Stileman, 
an early settler of Salem, Mass. He removed to Portsmouth 
before 1658. He was selectman at least fifteen times and deputy 
to the General Court six times, filling other minor town offices. 
As captain in the militia he had command of the fort on Great 
Island several years. He was first secretary of the Provincial 
Council, and in 1681 Deputy President. He represented Ports- 
mouth in the Assembly in 1692 and 1695. He is called Major 
Stileman in 1692, when he was made chief justice of the court of 
common pleas. He died December 19, 1695, aged 78. 

Samuel Dalton was son of Philemon Dalton and nephew of 
the Rev. Timothy Dalton of Hampton, who came from England 
to Watertown in 1635 and thence to Hampton in 1640. He was 
town clerk in 1653, selectman ten years and deputy to the Gen- 
eral Court thirteen times. He was also a judge in Norfolk 
county and treasurer. Altogether he was one of the most promi- 
nent and useful men in his town, popular as a public official be- 
cause of high character and abilities. He died August 22, 1681, 
having had six sons and eight daughters. 

Job Clements was son of Robert Clements of Haverhill, 
Massachusetts, who came over in 1640. He removed to Dover 
in 1652, living as a tanner on Dover Neck. He had large grants 
of land, was selectman six years and commissioner for the trial 
of small cases. He died in 1683 while holding the office of coun- 

2 Coll. of N. H. Hist. Soc'y- Vol. VIII, p. 339. The excellent biographical 
sketches of the Councilors, contained in that volume, have here been utilized. 


All of the first councilors had lived in New England between 
thirty and forty years and knew well the wishes and needs of the 
people. All were opposed to the claims of Robert Mason, except 
perhaps Job Clements. All were men of considerable wealth, 
gained in commerce. The planters were not represented in the 
council. Indeed not many of them were permitted to vote and 
send representatives to the Assembly. The selectmen of the four 
towns sent to the president and council lists of the names and 
estates of the inhabitants. The council selected from these lists 
the names of such persons as they judged qualified to be voters 
and great complaint was made that many fit persons were left 
out of the lists. Thus the council had opportunity to determine 
indirectly who the assemblymen should be, and they doubtless 
improved the opportunity. The number of qualified voters in 
Portsmouth was seventy-one ; in Dover, sixty-one ; in Hampton, 
fifty-seven, and in Exeter, twenty, making a total of two hundred 
and nine voters out of about five hundred that paid taxes the 
same year. The election of the assemblymen was held March 9, 
and the deputies chosen were, for Portsmouth, Robert Eliot, 
Philip Lewis and John Pickering; for Dover, Peter Coffin, An- 
thony Nutter and Richard Waldron, Jr. ; for Hampton, Anthony 
Stanyan, Thomas Marston and Edward Gove ; and for Exeter, 
Bartholomew Tippen and Ralph Hall. The Assembly met at 
Portsmouth March 16 and was opened by prayer and a sermon 
by the Rev. Joshua Moody. President Cutt named Richard Wal- 
dern as his deputy or vice-president ; Richard Martyn was chosen 
treasurer and John Roberts marshal. 

One of the first acts of the council was to address a letter 
to the General Court at Boston, in which they make it plain that 
it was not by their own act or choice that they were separated 
from the government of Massachusetts. All of them had held 
high offices under that government, and had been thus far 
enabled to hold on to their lands. Some aid also had been 
given them in the war with the Indians. Massachusetts 
allowed them to do about as they pleased so long as they 
upheld Puritan doctrines and customs and acknowledged the 
jurisdiction of the Bay Colony. In this letter they expressed 
their personal feelings, rather than those of the hundreds of 
planters whom they practically disfranchised : 


Portsmouth, in ye province of New-Hampshire, May 25, 1680. 

Much Honoured — The late turn of Providence made amongst us, by 
the all ordering Being, hath given occasion for this present application, 
wherein we crave leave, as we are in duty bound — ist, Thankfully to 
acknowledge your care for us and kindness while we dwelt under your 
shadow, owning ourselves deeply obliged that you were pleased upon our 
earnest request and supplication to take us under your government, and 
ruled us well whilst we so remained, so that we cannot give the least 
countenance to those reflections that have been cast upon you, as if you 
had dealt injuriously with us. 

2dly. That no dissatisfaction with your government, but merely our 
submission to Divine Providence, to his Majesty's commands, to whom 
we owe allegiance, without any seeking of our own, or desire of change 
was the only cause of our complying with that present separation from 
you that we are now under; but should have heartily rejoiced if it had 
seemed good to the Lord and his Majesty, to have settled us in the same 
capacity as formerly. And withal we hold ourselves bound to signify, that 
it is our most unfeigned desire that such a mutual correspondence betwixt 
us may be settled as may tend to the glory of God, the honour of his 
Majesty, whose subjects we all are, and the promoting of the common 
interest and defence against the common enemy; that thereby our hands 
be strengthened, being of ourselves weak and few in number, and that 
if there be opportunity to be any wise serviceable to you, we may show 
how ready we are thankfully to embrace the same. Thus wishing the 
presence of God to be with you in all your administrations, and craving 
the benefit of your prayers and endeavours for a blessing upon the heads 
and hearts of us who are separated from our brethren, We subscribe 

John Cutt, President. 
With consent of the Council & general Assembly. 

On the 29th of March the president and council had ad- 
dressed a letter to King Charles H, obsequiously submitting 
to be separated from "that shadow of your Majesty's authority 
and government under which we had long found protection, 
especially in the late war with the barbarous natives." They 
express themselves as "deeply sensible of the disadvantages 
likely to accrue to your Majesty's provinces and ourselves, 
more especially by the multiplying of small and weak govern- 
ments, unfit either for offense or defense." They express the 
hope of royal protection against any pretended claimers to 


their soil and mildly caution him against malevolent spirits, 
disposed to misrepresent them. 

In a second letter to the king, dated June 11, 1680, they 
again allude to "pretended claimers to our soil" and reiterate 
their own claims, based upon purchase from the Indians, the 
natural proprietors thereof, long and quiet possession, and 
defense of it against a barbarous enemy "with our lives and 
estates." They humbly suggest that the allowance of appeals, 
mentioned in the king's commission, may obstruct justice. If 
once they could do away with this safeguard to personal rights, 
they could do what they pleased with the claims of Mason. 
It would be like trying a case of larceny with the thieves 
themselves as judge, jury and witnesses, and no appeal allowed 
from their decision in their own favor. As for purchase of 
their lands from the Indians, repeatedly stated in various letters 
and papers, there is no record of such purchases, except in the 
sale of Exeter by Wheelwright and company from four Indian 
chiefs, and some sworn testimony that Dover men bought 
land of the Indians down as far as Lamprey river. We find 
no evidence whatever that Portsmouth and Hampton were so 
purchased. The claim may rest upon tradition then well known. 
One might as justly buy a township or a county of an Apache 
chieftain in Arizona for a blanket and then claim that it all 
belonged to such a purchaser, in opposition to the claim of 
the government of the United States. 

A fast had been ordered for the seventeenth day of March 
because of sundry tokens of divine displeasure, such as the 
sickness of President Cutt and the appearance of "that awful 
portentous blazing star, usually foreboding sore calamity to 
the beholders thereof," thus showing the superstitious feeling 
that the wisest and best men of the time had. They disclose 
also an inward trembling because of the "great thoughts of 
heart in our brethren and neighbors as they are circumstanced," 
for they did not dare to put the case more strongly against 
the decision of the king, for whose health and prosperity they 
urge the people to pray. All servile labor was inhibited, and 
the people were exhorted to "fervently wrestle with the Lord." 

The laws framed by the General Assembly and approved 
by the president and council bear date of March 16, 1680, but 


in the letter to the king, dated June ii of the same year, they 

According to your Majesty's command, we have, with our general 
assembly, been considering of such laws and orders as do, by divine favor, 
preserve the peace, and are to the satisfaction of your majesty's good 
subjects here, in all which we have had a special regard to the statute book 
your majesty was pleased to honor us with, for which, together with the 
seal of your province, we return most humble and hearty thanks ; but such 
has been the hurry of our necessary occasions, and such is the shortness 
of the summer (the only season to prepare for a long winter) that we have 
not been capable of sitting so long as to frame and finish aught that we 
judge worthy to be presented to your royal view; but shall, as in duty 
bound, give as speedy a dispatch to the affair as possible. 

It seems that the laws as first framed lacked mature con- 
sideration and the framers thereof were in doubt concerning- 
the substance and form of some of them. For this reason, 
perhaps, they were ready to listen to objections raised against 
some of them after the arrival of Governor Cranfield and 
Secretary Chamberlain. A comparison of the first code of 
laws, made in 1680, with those made in 1682 reveals some 
interesting modifications, softening the severity of some pen- 
alties. It has been often said that the laws were modeled after 
the laws of England, but it would be more exact to say that 
they were modeled after those of the Plymouth and Massa- 
chusetts Bay Colonies, which, in criminal matters at least, were 
almost a transcript of the Mosaic code.^ 

The preamble, after an allusion to the Liberties, Immuni- 
ties and Properties such as belong to free borne Englishmen, 
makes a broad statement, equivalent to a Bill of Rights or 
compact Constitution, claimed by themselves rather than granted 
by the king. "It is ordered and enacted by this Generall 
Assembly and the authority thereof, that no Act, Imposition, 
Law or Ordinance be made or imposed upon us but such as 
shall be made by the said Assembly and approved by the 
President and Council from time to time. That Justice and Right 

3 For an able paper on the history of colonial laws of N. H. see address 
of John M. Shirley, Esq., in proceedings of N. H. Hist. Society, Vol. I, pp. 


be equally and impartially administered unto all ; not sold, 
denied or causelessly deferred unto any." Thus they assumed 
to be a law unto themselves. They wanted to make all their 
laws and suffer no appeal to the king. This could hardly be 
called a royal government. Two years later this was changed 
to the following, "Be it enacted by the Governor, and with 
the advice and consent of the Council and Assembly, and it 
is hereby enacted by the authority aforesaid, that justice and 
right be equally and impartially administered unto all men, 
not sold, denied, or causelessly deferred unto any.''* 

Sixteen crimes were punishable with death, namely, idolatry, 
blasphemy, treason, public rebellion, wilful murder, man- 
slaughter, murder occasioned by passionate anger, witchcraft, 
beastiality, sodomy, false witness for the purpose of taking 
away a man's life, man-stealing, cursing or smiting of parents, 
extreme cases of rebellion against parental authority as testified 
by the parents themselves, rape, and arson. The low moral 
tone of the age is shown in fixing "the age of consent" at ten 
years. If a maid above that age consented, the crime could 
not be called rape. Of course some of these offenses never 
could be ferreted out and proved, and the laws were dead 
letters upon the statute books. What parents would bring a 
rebellious son of sixteen years of age before the magistrates 
and ask that the son be put to death on their testimony? If 
all blasphemers were punished as the letter of the law required, 
the population of New Hampshire would have grown sparser 
with great rapidity. 

The law against adultery was specially severe. Both parties 
were to be publicly whipped twice, once when the court was 
sitting, and once at such time and place as the court should order, 
"not exceeding 40 lashes," and also both parties were to wear 
the capital letters A D cut out in cloth and sewed on the arms 
or back of their uppermost garments ; in case they neglected to 
do so, they were to be whipped as often as they were found 
without such letters. In the year 1682 a fine of ten pounds was 
substituted for the whipping. Fornication was made punishable 
"either by injoining marriage, or fine or corporal punishment, or 
all or any of these," as the judges might determine. This gave 

4 N. H. Prov. Papers, Vol. I, pp. 382, 444. 


dangerous power to the judges, and in 1682 the penalty was fixed 
at a fine of five pounds. If children were born too soon after 
marriage, the parents were fined fifty shillings apiece or publicly 
whipped. The severity of such laws did not prevent nor conceal 
the evil practices. Like fines for drunkenness, they only gave 
fees to the courts. 

The enforced wearing of capital letters upon the garments 
was meant to hold the criminal up to public scorn and derision 
and thus act as a preventive of crime. The burglar, for the first 
offence, was branded on the right hand or forehead with the 
letter B. For the third offence he might be put to death. It is 
not known whether any criminal ever actually wore such letters 
in New Hampshire and thus publicly advertised his disgrace, 
although some were so sentenced. It is difficult to believe that 
such methods of punishment ever reformed a criminal, but the 
reform of evildoers was never taken into consideration in the 
criminal courts of those times. To put a violator of law on pro- 
bation would have been considered extreme folly. The majesty 
of the law must be vindicated, if half the population had to be 
whipped or go to jail. 

The Presid-ent and Council with the General Assembly were 
a supreme court of judicature, and three inferior courts were held 
at Portsmouth, Dover and Hampton. All trials were by a jury 
of twelve men, according to English custom, with right of either 
party to challenge any juryman for just and reasonable cause, 
and in case of life and death the prisoner had liberty to except 
against six or eight of the jury without giving any reason for 
his exceptions. 

Only freemen had the right to vote, and the conditions of 
becoming a freeman were, that one should be an Englishman and 
a protestant, a settled inhabitant and freeholder in some town 
in the province, of the age of twenty-four years, not vicious in 
life but of honest and good conversation, having twenty pounds 
of rateable estate and having taken the oath of allegiance to his 
Majesty and to no other. Such persons might vote for officers 
of the province and of their respective towns. It was in the 
power of the President and Council to determine who met all 
these conditions, a dangerous power, the abuse of which was 
complained of. 

One of the general laws seems to have been enacted for the 


purpose of excluding the claims of Robert Mason. "To prevent 
contention that may arise amongst us by reason of the late 
change of government it is ordered by this Assembly and the 
authority thereof that all land, townships, town grants, with 
all other grants lying within the limits of this Province, and all 
other rights and properties shall stand good and are hereby con- 
firmed to ye towns and persons concerned, in the same state 
and condition as they did before this late alteration." Any 
differences or controversies about titles to land were to be finally 
determined by a jury of twelve men, chosen by the freeman of 
each town. The revision of the laws made in 1682 declared this 
method of choosing jurymen to be contrary to the known laws 
and customs of England, and ordered that jurymen should be 
empaneled by the sheriff or marshal of the Province, and who- 
ever was thus legally summoned and returned of the jury and 
failed to appear without satisfactory excuse should forfeit twenty 
shillings for his default. The right of determining titles to land, 
thus summarily assumed, was set aside under the administration 
of Governor Cranfield, and the government of New Hampshire 
was taught that it took more than one to make a bargain, and 
that a majority vote in a town meeting was not enough to quiet 
the claims of a proprietor to whom lands had been granted by 
the King of England. 

It seems that the whole body of laws enacted during the 
first year of the royal province, when sent to England for appro- 
bation, was disallowed, and in 1682 other laws were enacted by 
"the Honorable, the Governor, with the advice and consent of 
the Council and General Assembly," in which latter code there 
were many modifications and omissions of statutes contained in 
the first. In the first code no authority was acknowledged but 
the General Assembly. The people of New Hampshire assumed 
too much, having been taught so to do by the government of 
Massachusetts. Both colonies had to learn that neither the 
charter of the latter nor the commission of the former was 
intended to grant independence of all authority in England, with 
only a nominal allegiance to the king. 

Edward Randolph had been appointed collector, surveyor 
and searcher of the customs in New England, and he made a 
deputy of Walter Barefoot, who is called both doctor and captain. 
The authority of both was denied by the government at Ports- 


mouth, and Mark Hunking brought action against Randolph for 
seizing his ketch, bound from Maryland to Ireland, which had 
put in at Portsmouth. He was allowed damages and costs to 
the amount of thirteen pounds, and an appeal was made by Ran- 
dolph to the king. He advertised that all vessels should be 
entered and cleared with Captain Walter Barefoot, whereupon 
the latter was indicted before the president and council for 
"having in an high and presumptuous manner set up his majesty's 
office of customs without leave from the president and council ; 
in contempt of his majesty's authority in this place; for dis- 
turbing and obstructing his majesty's subjects in passing from 
harbor to harbor and town to town ; and for his insolence in 
making no other answer to any question propounded to him but 
"my name is Walter." He was sentenced to pay ten pounds, 
although both Randolph and Barefoot seem to have been within 
their rights. The president and council then appointed officers 
of their own to execute their own orders as to trade. They 
equally hated Randolph and any interference with what they 
assumed to be their rights and liberties. 

On the thirtieth day of December, 1680, Robert Mason was 
admitted to a seat in the Council, by virtue of a mandamus from 
the king, dated October i, 1680. The royal purpose was thereby 
to give an opportunity to Mason to press his claim as proprietor 
of the soil of New Hampshire. The mandamus states that the 
quit rent to be exacted should not exceed six pence in the pound 
yearly of every tenant, and nothing previous to June 24, 1679. 
The president and council were exhorted to settle all claims with 
him discreetly and equitably. Mason, styling himself lord pro- 
prietor of the province of New Hampshire, appointed, March 22, 
1681, Richard Otis of Cochecho steward of all his lands lying in 
the township of Dover, as well as Newichawannock. All persons 
were forbidden to cut and carry away any sort of timber from 
said lands without license first obtained, threatening a prosecu- 
tion in England before his majesty in council. Mason and his 
agents busied themselves in demanding rents, and some persons 
took from him leases of their lands, and some others were dis- 
suaded from so doing by members of the council. Mason posted 
up certain "Declarations," one of which was torn down at Dover 
by Major Richard Waldern, saying that no such papers should 


be set up to amuse the people. Much uneasiness was felt among 
the inhabitants. The council summoned Mason to meet with 
them, which he refused to do. When they threatened to deal 
with him as an offender, he published a summons to the presi- 
dent and council to appear before his majesty in three months. 
A warrant was issued for apprehending him, but he escaped 
them and returned to England.^ 

Meanwhile President Cutt had died, April 5, 1680, and Major 
Richard Waldern succeeded him in office, appointing Captain 
Elias Stilemen as his deputy, whose place as secretary had been 
filled by the royal appointment of Richard Chamberlain to that 
office. The vacancy in the council was filled by the appointment 
of Richard Waldern Jr. Anthony Nutter succeeded Samuel 
Dalton at his death. Henry Dow of Hampton was made mar- 
shal on the resignation of that office by John Roberts. 

A vessel belonging to Robert Elliot was seized by Captain 
Walter Barefoot and his assistants, William Hoskins and 
Thomas Thurton, acting on the authority of Edward Randolph, 
collector of customs ; yet Barefoot showed no such instructions 
nor any law or statute to justify his procedure. He was fined 
twenty pounds. Thomas Thurton, for abusive and contemptuous 
language, saying that the members of the council were rebels 
against the king and a parcel of rogues, was sentenced to im- 
prisonment for one month in Hampton jail and to pay a fine 
of twenty pounds or be sold by the treasurer for the payment of 
said fine. A humble petition of his, begging for mercy, is on 
record. "To pay the sum required he cannot. To be sold runs 
him upon extremities."^ 

Richard Chamberlain arrived at Portsmouth December 24, 
1680, and was received at the house of President John Cutt, to 
whom he delivered his commission as secretary of the province 
and clerk of the council. Four days later the council met and 
refused to deliver to him the records which were in the hands 
of Capt. Elias Stileman, the previous secretary. Indeed the 
duties and fees properly belonging to Chamberlain were dis- 
tributed by the council among Stileman, who was named Re- 
corder, Clerk of the Writs and Captain of the fort at Portsmouth, 

5 Belknap's Hist, of N. H. Farmer's edition, p. 94. 

6 Coll. of N. H. Hist. Society, Vol. VHI, p. -ji. 


Samuel Dalton, who performed similar duties at Hampton and 
Exeter, and Richard Martyn, who took account of all ships and 
other vessels coming in and going- out. These Chamberlain, in 
his report to the Lords of Trade and Plantations, calls "parcel- 
Secretaries or Registrars of the Province," who shared the fees 
and profits that rightly pertained to the office of secretary. 
Chamberlain complained that the fees he received were so in- 
considerable that they were not worth naming, and that no 
salary was allowed him. It seems thus to have been the policy 
of the Council to starve the young secretary out, he having, as 
he says, but the bare name of an office. The council also sought 
to impose upon him an oath of secrecy, so that nothing of their 
deliberations should be recorded or reported to the king except 
what they agreed upon. This he would not consent to, and then 
they asked him to withdraw, whenever they had any private 
business, saying that "they knew what they had to do." He also 
reports that the council proposed to Robert Mason at his first 
coming that each town of the province should raise a yearly rent 
payable to him under their management, but that he insisted 
upon dealing with each tenant separately and directly. In this 
proposal they appear to have acknowledged that he had a legal 
claim to annual rents, though in all their representations to the 
king and his council they denied the justice of such claim with 
many arguments. Chamberlain says that "it is nothing but 
interest that makes them stand out, and because they have given 
to one another great tracts of land of Mr. Mason's and have sold 
land to many persons without legal title and do apprehend ye 
purchasers, upon eviction or new agreement, will come upon 
them for ye purchase money." Here the whole truth seems to 
be stated in a nutshell. Very many of the planters were ready 
to make terms with Mr. Mason, had it not been for the dissuasion 
of the leading men, especially Richard Waldern and Richard 
Martyn. Reports were circulated that Mason designed to en- 
slave the people, to make them pay two shillings for every 
chimney and ten shillings a year for every room they kept fire 
in, that they should neither fish nor fowl, and many such state- 
ments calculated to arouse the opposition of the small land- 
owners. Mr. Mason reported to the Privy Council that half the 
inhabitants of the province, and those of the better sort, came to 
him to have their lands confirmed, while the council of New 


Hampshire reported at the same time to the king that the 
people are unwilling- to live under the impositions which are in- 
evitable under such a proprietor as Mason, and that these are 
"the generality of the whole province that are householders and 
men of any principles, port, or estate." Thus the witnesses con- 
tradict one another repeatedly, and the historian must act as 
judge in determining whose testimony should be received. Pri- 
vate prejudices warped judgments and twisted statements, but 
it seems clear that a small coterie of wealthy men at Portsmouth, 
greatly aided by Major Richard Waldern, sought by sophistical 
arguments and misrepresentations to hold on to property illegally 
gained. The justice of the law is not here considered, but, ad- 
mitting that the king of England had right to grant land in New 
England to whomsoever he would at the beginning, as was 
generally admitted at that time, then Robert Mason's claim 
was valid and confirmed again and again by the highest legal 
authority in England. 

It may be well to note the condition of the province at this 
time. In 1671 Robert Mason wrote that "New Hampshire is a 
place the best improved for land and most populated of any in 
those parts ; abounding plentifully with corn, cattle, timber and 
fish ; and the people live generally very comfortably and happy ; 
having a great trade to all parts, and store of shipping at their 
town, Portsmouth, which exports and imports yearly some 
thousands of tons of goods, of their own growth and foreign. 
Goods exported yearly are 20,000 tons of deals and pipestaves, 
10,000 quintals of fish, ten shiploads of masts, and several thou- 
sands of beaver and other skins. The imports are 300 tons of 
wine and brandy, 200 tons of goods from the Leeward Islands, 
and 20,000 tons of salts." In 1684, after the first Indian war, 
Simon Bradstreet wrote to Edward Randolph thus, — "It is no 
small grief to us in Massachusetts to hear and see the miserable 
condition of our neighbors in New Hampshire ; once a hopeful 
and flourishing plantation, but now in a manner undone, — no 
face of trade, nor care for anything else, their own vessels being 
afraid to come into their own ports, as some of them have de- 
clared unto myself." These are partisan statements, and the 
middle ground of truth may possibly be found in a report of the 
council to the Lords of Trade and Plantations in 1681, as fol- 
lows, — 


There is at ye Great Island in Portsmouth at ye Little harbour mouth 
a ffort well enough situated, but for ye present too weak & Insufficient for 
the Defence of ye place, The Guns (being eleven in number) are small, 
none exceeding a Sacre, nor above 2100 waight; and ye people too poor to 
make defence suitable to ye occasion that may happen for ye ffort. These 
Guns were brought & the ffortification erected at the proper charges of 
the Towns of Dover & Portsmouth, at the beginning of ye first Dutch 
war, about the Year 1665, in obedience to His Majesty's Commands, in His 
Letter to ye Government, under which this Province then was. There are 
five Guns more lying at the upper part of Portsmouth purchased by private 
persons for their security and defence against the Indians in the late war 
with them ; and wherof the owners may dispose at their pleasure. To 
supply ye aforesaid defect & weakness of the Guns & ffort We humbly 
supplicate His Majesty to send us such Guns as shall be more serviceable, 
with powder and shot agreeable. . . . The trade of this Province exported 
by ye inhabitants of its own produce is in masts, planks & boards, staves 
& all other lumber. Which at present is of little value in other plantacons, 
to which they are transported ; So that we see no other way for the 
advantage of the Trade, unless His Majesty please to make our River of 
Pascataqua a free Port. Importacon by strangers, of little value; ships 
commonly selling ye cargoes in other Governments. And if they come 
here usually come empty, to fill with lumber : but if hapily they are at any 
time leaden with any fish, it is brought from other parts, there being none 
made in our Province. 

In reference to improvement of the Land by Tillage, Our soil is gen- 
erally so barren & ye winters so extremely cold & long, that there is not 
provision enough raised to supply ye inhabitants. Many wherof were in 
ye late Indian war so impoverished, their houses & estates being destroyed 
& they (& others) remaining still so incapacitated for ye improvement of 
ye land (several of ye youth being killed also) that they even grone under 
ye tax or Rate assessed for that service, which is yet (great part of it) 
unpaid to this day."^ 

■7 Sanborn's New Hampshire, pp. 79. 80; N. H. State Papers, Vol. XVII, 
■p. 542-3, Cf. Belknap's Hist, of N. H., Farmer's edition, pp. 94-5. 

chapter VI 


chapter VI 


Edward Cranfield Succeeds Major VValdern as Governor — Opposition Curbed 
— Authority of Cranfield — His Report to the King — Differences between 
the Planters and Robert Mason — -Readiness to Fight for Property — 
Report of the Governor to Lords of Trade — Dissolution of the Assembly 
— Insurrection of Edward Gove — His Trial and Barbarous Sentence — 
Gove Imprisoned in Tower of London — His Property Confiscated — 
Pardoned after Three Years — Changes in the Council Made by Cran- 
field — Sutits against Landowners — Petition Carried to the King by 
Nathaniel Weare — Imprisonment of William Vaughan — Letter of 
Vaughan — Arrest of Rev. Joshua Moody — -Attempt to Impose Episcopal 
Rites upon Congregationalists — Enforced Taxation — Charges against 
Cranfield — His Deposition and Character. 

THE Lords of Trade and Plantations made a report to the 
king, January 13, 1681-2, on the state of the colony in New 
Hampshire, in which they say, that "we doe find the Publick 
Acts and Orders (the most part of them) soe unequall, incon- 
gruous and absurd, and the methods whereby the Councill and 
Assembly have proceeded in ye establishment of the same soe 
disagreeable to the powers and directions of yr Majesty s said 
Commission" that they recommended the appointment of "some 
fit and able person" to settle affairs in that place. The de- 
cision, doubtless, was reached through the influence of Robert 
Mason after his return to London. He despaired of accomplish- 
ing anything by himself and was irritated by the oppositions of 
the president and council at Portsmouth. A governor from 
England, with enlarged powers and authority, might bring to 
terms the leading spirits of New Hampshire and enable Mason 
to collect his quit rents. Accordingly on the ninth of May, 
1682, Edward Cranfield was commissioned Lieutenant Governor 
and Commander in Chief of New Hampshire. Little is known 
of his previous life and family. He is thought to have been 
great-grandson of Edward Cranfield, who married Elizabeth, 
daughter of William Parker, Lord Monteagle. He sold some 
office he had in the home government, with the hope of enrich- 



ing himself in his provincial office of high-sounding title. By a 
deed Mason surrendered one-fifth part of the quit rents, which 
were in imaginary prospect, to the king, and thus perhaps ob- 
tained the appointment of Cranfield, who was further secured as 
an agent of Mason by mortgaging the whole province to him for 
a period of twenty-one years, as security for the payment of 
one hundred and fifty pounds annually, for seven years. With 
this security and with the fines and forfeitures which had already 
accrued to the crown and which might afterward arise Cranfield 
felt that his financial condition would be improved. Disappoint- 
ment awaited him. No rents were collected and the fines and 
forfeitures had been already paid out by the treasurer. 

Cranfield was instructed to repair to the province as speedily 
as convenient and there to call together the council to hear his 
commission read and to administer oath of allegiance to mem- 
bers of the council, judges and justices of the peace. If any 
members of the council refused to take the oath, their vacancies 
were to be filled by Cranfield, so that there should be seven 
members. Proclamation was to be made of his having been 
commissioned Lieutenant Governor and Commander in Chief. 
Richard Waldern and Richard Martyn, who were under accusa- 
tions "of diverse high crimes & misdemeanors," were to be 
suspended as members of the council, until said accusations 
were looked into. He was also charged to take care that 
future meetings of the council should not be held at ordinaries, 
or taverns, and that not "any part of the revenue levied for 
defraying the charge of the government should be spent or 
dispersed in feasting or public entertainments." This was based 
on complaints of previous misconduct of such sort, on the part 
of the council. He was instructed to report quarterly as to 
proceedings of the council and especially as to disposal of public 
money. He was to notify the assembly that all laws and orders 
made by virtue of commission, dated September i8, 1679, be 
repealed and annulled, and he with the council and assembly 
was to make such laws as were proper. He was to care that all 
planters and their Christian servants be provided with arms, 
mustered and trained, to report imports and exports, and to 
encourage especially the Royal African Company of England, 
to assist neighboring plantations in case of distress and to call 


ncighbors to assistance in case of depredations by the Indians. 

His commission gave hina authority to suspend any of the 
members of the council, if he should find just cause for so doing, 
and if the number of councilors should ever be less than seven, 
to fill the vacancies by his own appointment out of the principal 
freeholders and inhabitants of the province, any members of 
the council that should be suspended or displaced being incap- 
able thereby of serving as members of the assembly. Cranfield 
also was given power to negative, or veto, the making and 
passing of all laws, statutes and ordinances, and to prorogue and 
dissolve general assemblies, to establish as many courts of 
judicature and justice as he thought proper and to appoint 
judges, justices of the peace, sheriffs and other necessary officers, 
to pardon offenders and remit fines before or after sentence 
given, treason and wilful murder only excepted, and to grant 
reprieves even in such cases, until the king's pleasure might be 
learned. The rest of the commission is very similar to that 
given to John Cutt, first president of the council, and the in- 
structions concerning the claims of Mason were the same, in 
substance. In addition to his other titles Cranfield was made 
vice-admiral. The councilors named in his commission were 
Robert Mason, proprietor, Major Richard Waldern, Thomas 
Daniel, William Vaughan, Richard Martyn, John Oilman, Elias 
Stileman, Job Clements, Walter Barefoot and Richard Chamber- 
lain. All but the last two had been of the previous council. 

Waldern and Martyn were suspended at once after the 
publication of the commission, October fourth, because of accu- 
sations made against them, the nature of which may be seen in 
the depositions previously cited. Six weeks later they were 
restored to their seats in the council, the accusations being 
deemed unproved. The council thereupon ordered an assess- 
ment of five hundred pounds and made a present of one-half of 
the amount to Cranfield. Thus there were mutual concessions, 
and the Governor seemed to be well pleased and reported to 
the Plantation office that, "Mr. Mason has much misrepresented 
the whole matter, the place not being so considerable, nor the 
people so humored as he reports. There are but four small 
towns, all impoverished by the expense of the last Indian war, 
and several hundred pounds in debt on tha<^ account. I find 


them very loyal to His Majtie & willing to do what is within 
their reach for ye upholding of ye Government, but no way 
capable of doing so much as hath been pretended. And instead 
of being ready to own Mr. Mason as their proprietor they are 
very slow to admit of any person except their Sovereign Lord 
the King to be their Lord Proprietor & However they might at 
first complement in that matter, few or none (so farre as I can 
learn) are willing to comply (some few Quakers & such like 
excepted & those upon no other terms than upon ye conditions 
of his recovering ye whole) but ye general desire of ye Province 
is for a determination of ye case by Law, so that I humbly 
conceive Mr. Mason hath taken wrong measures for his pro- 
cedure. He concluded upon ye laying aside of Mr. Waldron & 
Martin & discountenancing ye Minister of ye principal place 
in ye Province that he should have frighted ye People into a 
compliance with him, but finds himself mistaken. Wheras had 
he desired & obtained an order for a Tryall upon ye place, he 
had been in my opinion one step nearer ye end of his business 
than he now is.. . .1 have been not fairly treated by Mr. Mason 
& Chamberlain for refusing to gratifie them.... Had I yielded 
to such violent courses as they urged, I should have greatly 
amazed, disturbed and prejudiced the people and in no ways 
promoted His Majties interest & Honour, which is so every 
way superior to the satisfaction of any private person." Then 
he goes on to criticize the judgment and abilities of Mr. Cham- 
berlain, thinking him poorly qualified for his office and much 
dejected through poverty. "Touching ecclesiastical matters, the 
attempt to settle the way of the Church of England I perceive 
will be very grievous to the people, however Mr. Mason 
asserted that their inclinations were much that way. I have 
observed them to be very diligent and devout in attending on 
that mode of worship which they have been brought up in." 
Thus Cranfield writes at the beginning of his administration, but 
soon he changes his mind and adopts with emphasis the opinions 
of Mason and Chamberlain. Indeed he far outdoes them in the 
harshness of measures proposed. It is noticeable that some 
succeeding governors of New Hampshire, as Usher and Bello- 
mont, entered upon the duties of their office with the same 
conciliatory spirit, taking the part of the council and assembly, 
and that they also soon recognized their mistake and reported 


that the people of New Hampshire were disloyal and wanted 
no government but their own. Cranfield has been represented 
as a harsh, unjust and tyrannical ruler; it seems that he was 
goaded to harsh speeches and severe measures by the obstinate 
spirit and conduct of those who were determined to resist the 
orders of the king and not to recognize any claims of Robert 
Mason. In the same letter Cranfield adds that the old record 
book has been found, in which it appears that "in Capt. John 
Mason's life time ye inhabitants being wholly without govern- 
ment, were forced to enter into a combination to govern them- 
selves by His Majtes laws as well as they could, — . . .Also they 
petitioned ye Massachusetts to take them under their govern- 
ment when they found by experience that they could not govern 
themselves. And as for taxes, the people own that ye Massa- 
chusetts have expended several thousand pounds for them in ye 
Indian war, that they never had any compensation for." This 
also shows that Cranfield entered upon his administration with 
a disposition to listen to the opinions and wishes of the people 
of New Hampshire, but they wanted more than he or the king 
could grant. They were as stubborn as he and would have 
exercised power as arbitrarily, had they possessed it. It was 
a conflict between pecuniary interests, and what will not men 
in general do for the defense of their property? What will not 
greed do to gain more? It may be well to state here as clearly 
as possible the difference in point of view between che claimants 
in this long Masonian controversy. The planters of New Hamp- 
shire stood upon their natural rights ; Mason upon his legal 
rights. The former pleaded that they had purchased their lands 
of the Indians, a statement that was true only in part, and, 
moreover, the prices paid were no fair equivalent for the lands 
received ; Mason pleaded that the lands had been granted to 
him as proprietor by the king of England, who obtained them by 
discovery and conquest of his subjects, and such a claim had 
long been allowed by feudal law. The planters truly stated that 
the wilderness had been subdued and brought into a state of 
cultivation by their own unassisted labors and that Mason had 
done nothing for the province; Mason, on the other hand, 
asserted that his grandfather had built houses and cleared lands 
at Little Harbor and Strawberry Bank and had expended 
altogether twenty thousand pounds in the colonization of the 


province, to which the reply was that most of this was expended 
at Newichawannock (South Berwick) in the province of Maine. 
The planters argued that they had defended their lands and 
homes against the Indian enemy, at great cost of property and 
life, and without any assistance from the heirs of Mason, to 
which there could be no reply. Another argument of the 
planters was that they had held uninterrupted possession of their 
lands for fifty years, no quit rents having been demanded during 
that time ; and the reply was that the death of Capt. John Mason, 
the unfaithfulness of his stewards and servants, the troublous 
times in England and the youthfulness of his immediate heirs 
had prevented the pressing of just claims, but that again and 
again the king and highest legal authority of England had 
admitted the justice of Mason's claims. According to the laws 
of England the settlers were squatters on lands belonging to 
Mason ; according to natural law the settlers had a better right 
than the king of England to the soil they cultivated. What 
reason is there, in the natural fitness of things, that William the 
Conqueror should own and distribute as he chose all the con- 
quered estates of England? What natural right had the king of 
England to lands in America, simply because some of his sub- 
jects had discovered the same? Such assumed rights were 
founded on laws made by the rich and powerful for their own 
convenience and pleasure. Theirs was the right of might, 
lording it over weakness and ignorance of the many. 

An anecdote may illustrate the position of the New Hamp- 
shire farmers. An Irishman was found, one Sunday morning, 
poaching on a Scotchman's estate, and was ordered off by the 
Scotchman, who claimed that the land and all thereon belonged 
to himself. "And how did you get it?" asked Pat. "I inherited it 
from my father," was the reply. "And how did he get it?" Pat 
again asked. "He inherited it from his father," "And how did 
he get it?" Pat continued to ask and pressed the Scotchman 
back to his earliest known forebear, who, as he said, fought for 
it and thus grounded original rights. "Well, bedad," said Pat, 
"I am ready to fight you for it." Thus he would establish as 
just a claim as the Scotchman had. Just so the planters of 
New Hampshire were ready to fight for their lands with such 
weapons as they could use, delays, evasions, misinterpretations, 
refusals to obey royal orders, legal technicalities, imprisonments 


and fines when they could impose such. Only a few, like Wal- 
dern and Martyn, had the courage and wisdom to come out 
boldly and say, The lands are ours by purchase, conquest, de- 
fense, improvement and long use, and the king has no rights 
here whatever. Such men were revolutionists without knowing 
it. They stood on natural rights, interpreted by reason, and 
natural rights should always triumph over merely human laws. 
Their mistake was in professing to be loyal to the king and 
laws of England at the same time that they spoke and acted 
against such authority, but their inability to back up their own 
just claims by force of arms made it necessary to practice the 
arts of diplomacy. They saw that the system of land tenure 
that obtained in England would not do for the colonies in 
America, that the history of Ireland ought not to be repeated 
here. It took another century to open the eyes of the rulers of 
England to such truths. 

The good humor of Cranfield was of short duration. Only 
four weeks after the letter above cited he wrote to the Lords 
of Trade and Plantations as follows : 

My Lords, let it not seem strange to your Lordships that in so short 
a time the matters in this paper appears so different from any former 
discourse to your Lordships from Boston, which in honour to his Majesty 
and vindication of my sincerity to his service I take the first opportunity 
to lay before your Lordships as follows. All in the late Council together 
with many of the chief Inhabitants in this province are part of the Grand 
Combination made up of Church members of Congregational Assemblies 
throughout the colonies of New England, and by that they are so strictly 
obliged that the interest or prejudice of any One, if considerable, effects 
and influences, the whole party and thus it has fallen out here. 

About August last the president and Council of this province admitted 
the ketch George, a Scotch vessel sailed with Scotsmen, belonging to one 
Jeffray a Scotsman a church member here, to enter and trade contrary to 
the I2th of the King. About fourteen days after my arrival Mr. Randolph 
having advice hereof seized her and Cargo for his Majesty, upon which 
I ordered her to be stopped and appointed a Court for a tryal, where 
Mr. Randolph appearing on his Majesty behalf insisted upon the breach 
of the Acts of trade and prayed condemnation thereupon. But the Jury, 
in which were four Church Members and leading men, although nothing 
was offered in barr of Judgment, find against the King and give Jeffray 
costs of Court against Mr. Randolph. Upon this I have been obliged to 
take new measures and in the first place have turned Stileman, Captain of 
the ffort, a Church Member, out of his Command for suffering the Ketch 
to pass the ffort before the tryall against my express order to the con- 


trary, and I have directed Mr. Randolph to prosecute with all vigour 
all persons concerned in contriving the escape and also to attaint the 
jury for bringing a false verdict, so that I am now upon this just occasion 
engaged to follow this matter as far as Law and the integrity of Juries 
will admit, and to lay aside persons whom I find declining in this so 
great a violation of Law & Justice. Upon my receiving his Majty Com- 
mission for the Government of this province your Lordships were of 
opinion that the irregular trade so often complained of by Mr. Randolph 
in his papers to your Lordships would be totally discouraged. 

The sight of the Lark fifrigat in their harbour put an awe upon them, 
but so long as their preachers exercise a countermanding power to his 
Majty authority and oppose all persons and things which receive not a 
sanction from them I am in much doubt where to find honest and fitt 
persons enough in this small Colony to administer Justice, serve in Juries 
and execute the several parts in Government. I cannot omitt to acquaint 
your Lordships of one particular case lately practiced in the courts of this 
province. A Gentleman brought his action upon a bond against a Church 
member. The case was so plain that the Jury found for the plaintiff, 
but the court would not admit of that verdict but gave damages against 
them. Thus their preachers support their common interest. 

Cranfield then goes on to ask for authority to remove all 
such preachers as oppose and disturb the peace of this govern- 
ment and advises the same method in the treatment of the 
Bostoners and those of the province of Maine. He adds that 
the jury in case of the ketch George were so far frightened by 
proceedings against them that after the vessel was out of reach 
they asked to amend their verdict and to find for the king, 
which request was granted. He says that juries would go 
against law and evidence, if they did not fear punishing their 
purses more than burdening their consciences.^ 

In place of Stileman Walter Barefoot was made captain of 
the fort, and the former was deposed from his seat in the council. 
The continual effort on the part of Randolph to enforce the 
Navigation laws offended the merchants, who wanted to get 
rich faster than those laws allowed. Their conduct was of the 
same nature as smuggling, and their only excuse was that 
almost everybody in the colonies did so, which was, doubtless, 

On the twentieth of January, 1683, the assembly convened, 
and the governor and council offered a bill for the support of 
government, which was not approved. Neither did their bills 

IN. H. State Papers, Vol. VH, pp. 575-78. 


meet the approval of Cranfield. The result was that he dis- 
solved the assembly, according to the authority conferred in his 
commission. This was something- new in their history. They 
began to see more clearly that if Cranfield could suspend mem- 
bers of the council at will and dissolve the assembly at will, 
and appoint whomsoever he would as judges and other officers, 
then the whole machinery of government was in his hands, 
legislative, executive and judicial. His was practically an unlim- 
ited and arbitrary monarchy, with this exception, that he had 
no obedient army to enforce his will upon the people. Edward 
Gove of Hampton was a member of the assembly at the time 
it was dissolved. Later it was pleaded in extenuation of his 
conduct that Cranfield cursed and swore at the assembly and 
threatened them if they refused to vacate laws previously made. 
Because Gove seemed to oppose such unwarrantable proceed- 
ings, Cranfield questioned him before the council and assembly 
and threatened to punish him at Common Pleas and indict him 
at Whitehall. This statement has the appearance of being exag- 
gerated. But Gove was highly indignant and conceived in his 
agitated and distracted mind an armed revolt against such 
arbitrary and tyrannical rule. Hannah Gove, in her petition for 
pardon of her husband, said that he was subject to a distemper 
of lunacy or some such like from his youth, as his mother was 
before him, and that he never had any intention of disloyalty, 
when rational, but the contrary, as he would have pleaded at 
his trial, had he been himself. Sergeant John Stephens, aged 
seventy, testified in 1683, that Edward Gove some years since 
was in a strange distemper and was watched night and day 
by said Stephens. Sometimes Gove had to be bound hand and 
foot, and in 1659 the court at Hampton recognized that he 
needed a guardian. All this was testified in order that Gove 
might be pardoned ; yet it was, doubtless, true that he was of 
unbalanced mind at times, though evidently a man of ability 
and of some wealth. 

He visited Dover, Portsmouth and Exeter, conversing with 
some of the leading men, trying to persuade them to join him 
in an insurrection. All spoke to him against the movement, 
yet he was as persistent as John Brown was in later times and 
as sure of success. Cranfield wrote to the Lords of Trade and 
Plantations that "Edward Gove hath made it his business in 


the several towns within this province to stir the people up to 
a rebellion, giving out that he had a sword by his side and 
would not lay it down until he had the government in his hands." 
He believed that Gove "had been set on by some of the Massa- 
chusetts colony," and Randolph declared his opinion that it was 
the intention of ^, Gove and other conspirators to put to death 
both Cranfield and Mason. This must be regarded as one of 
the exaggerations of prejudice. In private letters Gove after- 
ward declared that he had a party at his house at which the 
usual beverage was served and that he had not slept for twelve 
days and nights about that time, — another exaggeration. The 
governor sent messengers to Hampton and Exeter, with war- 
rants for the constables, requiring the arrest of Gove, and or- 
dered the militia of the whole province to be in readiness. Gove 
eluded the constables for a little while, went to Exeter and 
returned with a party of twelve men, principally of that town. 
They were mounted and armed with swords, pistols and guns. 
With sword drawn and a trumpeter sounding the cavalcade rode 
into Hampton. Here they were all arrested by the militia, 
except the trumpeter, who made his escape and for whom a hue 
and cry was sent throughout the province. This trumpeter was 
Nathaniel Ladd of Exeter, for whose pardon his wife, Elizabeth 
Ladd, and her mother, Elizabeth Gilman, offered a petition. 
Those arrested with Gove were John Gove, his son, William 
Healey, John Wadleigh, Joseph Wadleigh and Robert Wadleigh, 
sons of Robert Wadleigh and the oldest only twenty years of 
age. Their parents testified in a petition that their sons met 
Gove by accident and went with him, not knowing his treason- 
able intent. Others arrested were Thomas Rawlins, Mark Baker 
and John Sleeper. Some of the men were servants of Gove and 
went with him by his order. None understood what his design 

They were arrested the twenty-seventh of January and were 
brought to trial February first. The grand jury was composed 
of John Hinckes, Robert Elliot, John Moulton, Edward Gilman, 
Thomas Marston, John Redman, Samuel Wentworth. William 
Sanborn, Nathaniel Bachelder, Moses Gilman, John Sherburne, 
William More, Richard Sloper, John Roberts, Henry Moulton, 
Joseph Canney, Mathias Haynes, Job Clements, Joseph Beard, 
Samuel Haynes and Morris Hobbs. These made presentment 


that Gove and company "did at Hampton on ye twenty-sixth 
day of January last past traitorously with force & arms, Vizt., 
swords drawn, guns, pistols & other weapons, & with the sound 
of a trumpet, levy war against his Maty & his Government, 
appearing and rendevousing at Hampton aforesaid in a Rebel- 
lious body & assembly in a hostile manner, raising and making 
insurrections & with treasonable words at Hampton aforesaid 
and Portsmouth & other places moving and inciting the people 
to sedition & Rebellion, declaring for liberty & the like." The 
petit jury impaneled consisted of Henry Dow, Humphrey Wil- 
son, John Brewster, Philip Cromwell, Joseph Smith. John Tuck, 
Francis Page, John Sewer, Obediah Morse. Richard Water- 
house, Mathew Nelson, and James Randle. The witnesses 
against the accused were Richard Martyn, Reuben Hull (not 
Hall, as some historians have said), Jonathan Thing. Nathaniel 
Weare, Henry Green, Henry Roby and William Marston. The 
last four were neighbors of Gove at Hampton, now Seabrook, 
The judge was Major Richard Waldern of Dover, and he was 
assisted by Thomas Daniel and William Vaughan. 

At the trial Gove was insolent and talked like a madman. 
He railed at the governor and called him traitor, saying that 
he acted by a pretended commission. All pleaded not guilty 
to the charge, though they admitted the fact. The others said 
that they had been drawn in by Gove. The jury, after six hours 
of conference found Gove guilty of high treason according to 
the indictment and all the rest in arms. Gove was then sen- 
tenced by Judge Waldern, in the language prescribed by Eng- 
lish law, to bear the same penalty as had been suffered by 
the regicides. "You, Edward Gove, shall be drawn on a sledge 
to ye place of Execution & there you shall be hanged by ye 
neck, and then yet living be cut down & cast on ye ground & 
yor bowels shall be taken out of your belly & yor privy members 
cut off & burnt while you are yet alive, yor head shall be cut 
off & yor body devided in four parts & yor head & quarters 
shall be placed where our Soveraigne Lord ye King pleaseth to 
appoint, And the Lord have mercy on yor soul." Let no more 
be said against the barbarity of the North American Indians of 
that time. This hideous and revolting sentence was framed by 
the educated court of England. It is said that Waldern shed 
tears as he pronounced sentence of death upon Gove, with 


whom he had sat in the assembly and with whom he was one 
in spirit, if not in judgment. 

Judgment on the rest was suspended till his Majesty's 
pleasure should be known. All were consigned to the custody 
of Capt. Walter Barefoot, who kept them in irons, called bilboes, 
in the fort, "irons five-foot and several inches long, two men 
locked together," as Gove wrote, yet he said that he rested 
better than he had done fourteen or fifteen nights before. His 
letter written in prison shows a disordered mind, and a jury of 
good sense ought to have discerned this and released the whole 
company with words of advice and caution. But juries were 
instructed to decide according to the letter that killeth, and 
law then knew little mercy. The pound of flesh must be exacted. 
The people were greatly excited, and a mole-hill was magnified 
into a mountain, especially in the reports of Cranfield and 
Randolph, who were anxious to impress upon the authorities 
at London the dangerous and rebellious character of the people 
of New Hampshire. 

Edward Gove was conveyed to England in chains, under 
care of Edward Randolph, who seems thus to have learned bet- 
ter the spirit and motives of Gove, and he helped to secure his 
pardon. Gove was lodged in the tower of London and remained 
there about three years, under charge of Thomas Cheek, who 
never allowed Gove to be out of sight of a warden, day nor 
night. On the eleventh of June, 1683, Gove wrote to Edward 
Randolph, asking him to petition the king for pardon, saying, 
"Had I known the lawes of the land to be contrary to what was 
done, I would never have done it, you may well think, I was 
ignorant of any law to the contrary, since for 14 or 15 years 
past the same thing hath been done every yeare and no notice 
at all taken of it." Here he probably alludes to the fact that 
he was accustomed to invite his neighbors and friends to meet 
with him at his house and have a social glass together. When 
his case was under consideration for pardon it was alleged that 
he had not above two hours sleep in eighteen days previous to 
his arrest, so that he was distracted, scarce knowing what he 
either did or said, and that he "invited divers neighbors to his 
house as usual for twenty years and upwards to eat and drink 
with him." It may be that Cranfield desired his condemnation 
for high treason, in order that his property might be ct nfiscated. 


At any rate all his lands and goods were seized, and his wife 
and ten children were turned out of doors. After his pardon 
his property was ordered restored to him. The young men 
associated with him in this so called rebellion were all pardoned 
by Cranfield. 

On the seventeenth of February, 1682. governor Cranfield 
caused notices to be affixed to the church doors, that if the in- 
habitants of the province came not within one month to take 
leases from Mr. Mason, pursuant to his Majesty's commission, 
he would certify the refusal to his Majesty, that Mr. Mason 
might be discharged from his obligation to grant such. This 
was meant to frighten the landholders into making terms with 
Mason. Major Richard Waldern, John Wingate and Thomas 
Roberts, all of Dover, waited upon the governor and Mr. Mason 
and proposed to the latter to refer the matter to the governor, 
that he, according to his commission, might present the matter 
to the king for his decision. Their proposal was rejected by 
Mason, although this w^as precisely in harmony with the king's 
expressed wishes. Witnesses testified that Mason threatened 
to take away the lands of the principal inhabitants, not leaving 
them a foot in the province, and that he would live on Andrew 
Wiggin's farm, being a good one ; that the people had been in 
one rebellion and he would force them into a second and then 
hang them ; that he was looking for a frigate and would quarter 
ten soldiers at each house, till they ate vip all the cattle and 
sheep and beggared the inhabitants. Such testimony seems to 
be largely the product of heated imagination, not being in 
harmony with the patient and gentle character of Mr. Mason, 
as otherwise shown. 

About this time Waldern, Martyn and Oilman were sus- 
pended as members of the council, and Nathaniel Fryer, Robert 
Elliot and John Hinckes were added thereto, all merchants of 
Portsmouth. Elliot and Hinckes were sons-in-law of Fryer, 
who for half a century was one of the leading men of Ports- 
mouth, holding many offices, such as judge of probate and chief 
justice of the court of common pleas. The tax list shows that 
John Hinckes was one of the wealthiest men of that city. He 
became a judge and a prominent man in the councils of the 
province, apparently siding with Mason or his opponents accord- 
ing to change of the political wind. His second wife was prob- 


ably Mary, widow of Thomas Cobbet of Portsmouth. In 1684 
Francis Champernown and Robert Wadleigh became members 
of the council, and Edward Randolph and James Sherlock are 
named as members. Joseph Rayn appears as sheriff and pro- 
vost marshal and later as attorney general. Barefoot was 
deputy governor, captain of the fort and judge. The juries were 
packed with men who had taken leases of Mason or were favor- 
able to his interests. 

After court machinery had thus been put in gear and oiled, 
suits were begun by Mason against the principal landowners, 
and first of all Major Richard Waldern was sued for holding 
lands and felling timber to the value of four thousand pounds. 
The case is best stated in the words of Walter Barefoot who 
thus made oath, November 6, 1684, 

"That at the trial had between Robert Mason Esq., Proprietor of the 
said Province, and Richard Waldron Esq., for title of land, the said 
Waldron, to avoid the trial, did except against the whole Jury that was 
impanneled. And when the court told him that he had liberty to except 
against any persons, showing cause, as they came to be sworn, the said 
Waldron answered he had nothing to object against any particular person, 
but he excepted against the whole Jury as being persons that lived in 
the Province and owned Mr. Mason to be Proprietor. Whereupon the 
court, that all reasonable satisfaction might be given, did administer an 
oath to every person of the Jury, who severally did make oath, that he 
was not concerned in the Land in Question ; and that he would neither 
gain nor lose by the cause. Whereupon the said Waldron did speak 
aloud in the face of the Court, to ye people then present, these words : 
That his case was the case of them all, and that his case did concern 
the whole Province, and that if he were cast it would be a leading case, 
& then they must all of them become Tenants to Mr. Mason, & that 
they all of them being persons concerned they should not be of the 
Jury, for which words he was bound to ye good behavior, and at the 
next Quarter Sessions of the Peace, a Bill was found against him by 
the Grand Jury, and he fined five pounds. Nor did the same Waldron 
make out any title to the lands in question, or produce any evidence, 
though often required by the court, if he had any, that he would put it 
in, that the Jury might hear it ; and in all the trials the Proprietor hath 
had not any one man hath produced any Deed, Evidence, or Record to 
make a title of land- 

Waldron and others appealed from the decisions of the court 
to his Majesty in council, but gave no security, and a little 

2 N. H. Prov. Papers, Vol. I. pp. 503-4. 


later the policy adopted was to make no appeal. Waldron was 
fined for "mutinous and seditious words," and the wonder is 
that the fine was so light, for he tried to browbeat the whole 
court, showing- forth the imperiousness of a man of wealth and 

Suits followed in quick succession, sometimes as many as 
from seven to twelve in a day. Some have written that as many 
as forty of the landowners were thus cast. Probably more 
than twice that number were sued and made no defense. In 
Dover alone suits were begun against the following thirty-four, 
Major Richard Waldern, John Heard, Sen., William Home, 
Jenkin Jones, William Furber Jr., John Hall Jr., Joseph Field, 
Nathaniel Hill, James Huckins, William Tasker, Zachary Field, 
Philip Chesley Jr., Robert Burnham, Anthony Nutter, William 
Furber Sen.. Thomas Paine, Charles Adams, Thomas Edgerly, 
Henry Langstaff, Thomas Stevenson, John Meader, John Wood- 
man. John Wingate. John Davis Sen., Joseph Beard, John Rob- 
erts, Joseph Stevenson, Samuel Hill, Philip Lewis, John Ger- 
rish, John Hill, Joseph Hall, Thomas Roberts, Sen. No pur- 
chasers could be found for the estates seized, and the original 
owners remained in possession. An attempt to levy an execu- 
tion in Dover on a sabbath caused a tumult which was ended 
by a young woman, who knocked down one of the officers with 
her Bible.^ Major William Vaughan appealed to the king, but 
the verdict against him was sustained. Some in Hampton pre- 
sented to the court a written statement of reasons for refusing 
to oppose the suits, "The refusal of Mason to comply with the 
directions in the commission ; the impropriety of a jury's 
determining what the king had expressly reserved to himself; 
and the incompetency of the jury, they being all interested per- 

Cranfield and his council assumed to be the entire govern- 
ment and made laws and rules to suit themselves, changing the 
value of current money, prohibiting vessels from Massachusetts 
to enter the port, establishing fees of office, and forbidding con- 
stables to collect any town or parish rates till the taxes imposed 
by them were paid, sending to prison whosoever opposed them 

3 Hist. Mem. of Ancient Dover, p. 219. 
4Dow's Hist, of Hampton, Vol. I, p. 106. 


on very slight pretexts and harassing the landowners by law- 
suits and excessive court charges. As their only defence appeal 
was made to the king through petitions quietly circulated in the 
four towns, in which they recite their hardship in subduing a 
howling wilderness and their possession of their farms in peace 
for fifty years, but now they are reduced to confusion and 
extremities through the encroachments of Robert Mason and the 
effects and concommitants thereof. Wherefore they beseech his 
Majesty and privy council to give ear to their complaints 
through their messenger, Mr. Nathaniel Weare, in order that the 
oppressed might be relieved and wrongs righted. Such was the 
substance of the petition of almost undone subjects, prostrate 
at his Majesty's feet, for petitioners then as well as now were 
compelled by custom to employ the language used when mon- 
archs were unlimited and subjects were slaves. Thirty-four 
persons signed the petition from Exeter; sixty-eight from 
Hampton ; sixty from Portsmouth ; and fifty-eight from Dover, 
of whom fully half lived at Oyster River. 

Nathaniel Weare, who carried this petition secretly to Bos- 
ton and thence to London lived in that part of Hampton which 
is now Seabrook. He was son of Nathaniel and grandson of 
Peter Weare and married Elizabeth, daughter of that Richard 
Swaine who was disfranchised for entertaining Quakers and 
who subsequently removed from Hampton to Nantucket. 
Weare's sister, Hester, married Capt. Benjamin Swett, who was 
killed in battle with the Indians at Black Point, Scarborough, 
while in command of the forces there. Weare was a councilor 
twenty years and later chief justice of the supreme court of 
New Hampshire. His son, Nathaniel, was also a justice of the 
supreme court and speaker of the House of Representatives, or 
General Assembly. It is said on good authority that Nathaniel 
Weare brought back from England and planted at Hampton 
Falls an elm that is still standing. He died Mav i.^, 1718, in 
the 87th year of his age, a man held in highest respect for his 
character and abilities. 

Major William Vaughan accompanied Weare to Boston and 
was appointed to procure depositions to support Weare's state- 
ments before the king's council. He found great difficulty in 
securing these, being refused copies of the records also, and 


on his return to Portsmouth was angrily questioned by gov- 
ernor Cranfield as to where he had been and for what purpose. 
His answers being unsatisfactory, the governor called Vaughan 
a mutinous fellow and required of him bonds for good behavior. 
Vaughan answered that if he had broken any of the king's laws, 
he was ready to give such bonds. So testified Peter Coffin on 
the twenty-seventh of January, and on the eighteenth of Febru- 
ary following Thomas Thurton made a deposition concerning 
an assault made on himself by Vaughan about the beginning of 
March 1681, or nearly two years before. He made oath that 
Vaughan interfered with the performance of his duty as 
searcher of vessels, forced his staff from him and therewith 
struck him ten blows, inflicting lasting injury, and ended by 
giving him a blow in the king's highway and calling him a 
rogue. Whereupon Vaughan was arrested and cast into prison, 
to be kept till the next term of court. Vaughan continued in 
prison about nine months, when he was set at liberty because of 
instructions sent to the governor from the Lords of Trade. 
Cranfield was also directed to cease prosecutions of Mason's 
claims in the courts, till the appealed case of Vaughan was 
decided. During Vaughan's imprisonment he wrote a long 
letter to Nathaniel Weare, it being a journal of transactions dur- 
ing four months. 

This letter is full of interest and sheds much light on the 
spirit and methods of Cranfield, as interpreted by an able oppon- 
ent. He narrates that executions had been served by Mason on 
Messrs. Cutt, Daniel, Fletcher, Moody, Hunking, Earl (or 
Hearle), Pickering and Booth, men of wealth and influence in 
Portsmouth. Doors, chests and trunks had been broken open 
by Daniel Matthews, the marshal's deputy. John Partridge and 
William Cotton were in prison because nothing but money 
would be taken for their execution, fish, sheep, horses, etc.. 
having been refused. The minister, Rev. Joshua Moody, for 
refusing to administer the sacrament to Cranfield and others, 
was prosecuted and threatened with imprisonment for six 
months. Several, including Vaughan, who had paid their money 
at Mason's suit were sued again for illegally withholding pos- 
session, although the marshal never came to demand it. John 
the Greek, alias John Amazeen, had been thrust into prison, 
and fifteen sheep, sundry lambs and two heifers of his had been 


seized to satisfy costs of court amounting to six pounds and odd 
money. Mr. George JafTrey, the Scotchman, had been warned 
to clear his house, because Mr. Mason was coming to take 
possession of it. Jaffrey went to the Bank (Strawberry Bank) 
on business, and his servants were turned out of doors and 
coming home wet were not allowed to enter, Matthews and 
Thurton, deputy sheriffs, lodging there that night. Cranfield, 
being unable to get money voted by the assembly, had taken a 
roundabout way of obtaining it, by appointing certain wealthy 
opponents to the office of constable. A refusal of the office 
meant a penalty of ten pcrunds. Among those so appointed and 
who paid their fines rather than serve were Richard Waldern, 
Capt. John Gerrish, Lieut. Anthony Nutter, John Woodman of 
Dover, John Smith of Hampton, and John Foulsom of Exeter. 
These were members of the refractory assembly, w^ho would not 
pass a bill desired by the governor, v/ho accused them of having 
consulted over night with parson Moody, "an utter enemy to 
church and commonwealth." Thereupon he dissolved the as- 
sembly. Jaffrey 's house was converted into a prison, his goods 
having been put into the street during his absence, and he was 
sought up stairs and down throughout the residence of Mrs. 
Cutt, who was then sick in bed. The constable, Daniel Matt- 
hews, was beaten, at the house of Francis Mercer, by Capt. John 
Pickering, after some tippling perhaps, and this was talked of as 
part of a deep plot, deeper than that of Edward Gove. Capt. 
Pickering was bound over. Others were heavily fined, sent to 
prison or driven out of the province. Much talk was made about 
frigates to scare the people. Cranfield put Chamberlain out of 
all offices except that of secretary to the council, for which the 
latter was much dejected and the governor swore dreadfully 
that "he would put the province into the greatest confusion and 
distraction he could possibly, and then go away and leave them 
so, and then the devil take them all." The governor went to 
the chamber of the sheriff, Rayn, and beat him dreadfully. 
Perhaps he needed no army to enforce his decrees. Later the 
governor went to New York, by way of Boston where he had 
a cold treat, to discourse with Colonel Dungan about sending 
two hundred Mohawks to kill the eastern Indians. The wife 
of Capt. Elias Stileman had been cast into prison and there 
kept till the next morning, "a thing not to be paralleled in the 


English nation." — "No tongue can tell the horrible imperious- 
ness and domineering carriage of that wretch." — John Partridge 
was in prison and was offered his freedom, if he would pay 
thirty pounds. The sheriffs, Matthews and Thurton, had gone 
to Hampton and arrested seven including Capt. Sherburne. 
They executed upon William Sanborn, took away four oxen, 
drove seven cows from Nathaniel Bachiler, went to the house 
of Nathaniel Weare, cursed and swore at his son Peter and 
demanded his four oxen, which were refused. They took three 
pounds from Mrs. Weare and drove away some young cattle, 
which they afterwards released. Vaughan was refused counsel 
at court and to have witnesses sworn. The governor demanded 
of him a bond of two hundred pounds before he would release 
him from prison. Vaughan refused, offering instead to live out 
of the province. This racy epistle shows how Cranfield was 
managing matters with a high hand, his principal aim being to 
extort money from the people on any pretexts, for all the fines 
and forfeitures went to him. He favored the claims of Mason 
only because Mason had mortgaged the province to him, and 
he threatened that if Mason would not acknowledge a judgment 
of six hundred pounds at the next court, he would take all the 
business from him and sue in his own name. He was urged on 
by greed and maddened by oppositions. 

On the nineteenth of October, 1683, Cranfield wrote to Sir 
Lionel Jenkins thus, — "It is my humble opinion a true Reforma- 
tion can never be expected, as long as ye University here (called 
Cambridge) sends forth such Rebellious Trumpeters, who daily 
sound their disloyal principles into ye eares of ye credulous 
vulgar, who are apt enough of themselves to take any impression 
tending to ye disinterest of the Crowne." He utters his sus- 
picions that the leaders in New England knew of the late horrid 
plot against the King and Duke of York, for the happy discovery 
of which he, Cranfield, had ordered a day of public Thanksgiving 
with cessation of labor and with religious services in all the 
churches, and he adds that "the thinness of their congregations 
sufficiently shows their dislike of it." The ministers daily make 
great clamors against the Church of England and both they and 
their laity have so great a prejudice against his Majesty's gov- 
ernment, that until the Universities of England supply these 
colonies with a clergy, never any true duty and obedience will 


be showed to the king. Governor Cranfield had a special aver- 
sion for the clergy of New England and the Rev. Joshua Moody 
in particular, an alumnus of Harvard and long minister at Ports- 
mouth. As a liberally educated man he, like all the Congrega- 
tional ministers, was a constant adviser of the people in matters 
political as well as spiritual. So far were the early ministers of 
New England from "meddling with politics," that they, like the 
old Hebrew prophets, made politics and the sins of rulers one 
of the chief objects of their concern. As discerners of the signs 
of the times they made their pulpits watchtowers, from which 
they cried aloud to warn the people of approaching dangers, 
and their advice was sought by men in authority, in all times 
of peril and disorder. 

Therefore the arbitrary governor did not like Mr. Moody 
any more than Ahab liked Elijah. George Jaffrey, the owner 
of the ketch aforementioned, was a member of the church at 
Portsmouth, and he swore falsely that he knew nothing about 
the sailing of the ketch out of the harbor in the night. The 
matter was adjusted between the governor and Mr. Jaffrey, but 
the minister insisted upon proper church discipline and preached 
a sermon against false swearing. The offender was called to 
account by the church and censured, and at length he made 
public confession. Cranfield sought a way to chastise Mr. 
Moody and on the basis of an old English law, not at all appli- 
cable to the occasion, got the council to issue the following 
order : 

It is hereby required and commanded That all and singular the respective 
ministers within this Provoince for the time being, do, from and after 
the first da}' of January next ensuing, admit all persons that are of suitable 
years, and not vicious and scandalous in their lives, unto the blessed 
sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and their children unto the baptism. 
And if any persons shall desire to receive the sacrament of the Lord's 
Supper, or their children to be baptized according to the liturgy of the 
Church of England, that it be done accordingly, in pursuance of the laws 
of the realm of England, and his Majesty's command to the Massachusetts 
• government. And if any minister shall refuse to do so, being thereunto 
duly required, he shall incur the penalty of the statutes in that case made 
and provided, and the inhabitants are freed from paying any duties to the 
said minister. Dated December lo, 16835 

5 Coll. N. H. Hist. Society, Vol. VIII, p. 163. 


Thus he would by force convert all Congregational min- 
isters into Episcopalians without any laying on of hands of 
bishops in the apostolical succession, regardless of their own 
wishes and conscientious convictions. Cranfield and the coun- 
cil thus made it a penal offence not to do that which Mr. Moody 
had neither the right nor power to do and which would not have 
been sanctioned by the Church of England. Very soon after 
the governor notified Mr. Moody in writing that he himself, 
together with councilors Robert Mason and John Hinckes in- 
tended to partake of the Lord's Supper the following Sunday 
and that he wanted it administered according to the form of 
the prayer book. Of course he expected a refusal and got what 
he expected. This opened the way for formal accusation of 
misdemeanor and arrest. Accordingly Joseph Rayn, who had 
been promoted from being sheriff and provost marshal to the 
office of Attorney-general of the province, gave information 
against Mr. Moody, referring to the statutes made in the fifth 
and sixth of King Edward the Sixth and the first year of the 
reign of Queen Elizabeth, confirmed by a statute made in the 
thirteenth and fourteenth year of the reign of Charles the Sec- 
ond, whose meaning was grossly perverted. Mr. Farmer, in 
his notes to Mr. Belknap's History of New Hampshire cites the 
statute of Charles 11. : 

Wee do hereby charge and require you that freedom and liberty be 
duely admitted and allowed, so that they that desire to use the booke 
of common prayer and perform their devotion in that manner that is 
established here be not denyed the exercise thereof, or undergoe any 
prejudice or disadvantage thereby, they using their liberty peacably w^ithout 
any disturbance to others ; and that all persons of good and honest lives 
and conversations be admitted to the sacrament of the Lord's supper 
according to said booke of common prayer, and their children to baptism. 

The law was never made with the intention to force non- 
conformists to use the liturgy of the Church of England. This 
would be to take away liberty rather than allow it. But the 
ingenuity of malice can interpret almost anything to mean what 
it desires. Mr. Moody was brought to court and confessed that 
he had administered the sacraments contrary to the rites and 
ceremonies of the Church of England. The attorney-general 
interpreted this as contempt of law and prayed that Joshua 
Moody might suffer the penalties provided. The warrant for 


committing Mr. Moody to prison was signed by Walter Bare- 
foot, Peter Coffin, Henry Green and Henry Roby. There was 
difference of opinion among the judges; Nathaniel Fryer and 
Thomas Edgerly were for acquital, alleging that "whereas his 
gracious Majesty hath been pleased to grant liberty of con- 
science to all Protestants in his royal commission, Mr. Moody 
being a Protestant is not liable to the penalties of the acts of 
Parliament." Henry Green and Henry Roby, both of Hampton, 
also at first signified their dissent from his condemnation, but 
the decision of the case was postponed till the following day, 
and Mr. Moody after some difficulty was permitted to pass the 
night at the residence of Capt. Elias Stileman, where he and 
William Vaughan had a cheerful time, both being confined in 
one chamber. Meanwhile Cranfield found ways of hectoring 
and threatening Green and Roby, so that they joined with Peter 
Coffin and Walter Barefoot in pronouncing Mr. Moody guilty. 
Both Fryer and Edgerly, persisting in opinions formerly ex- 
pressed, were dismissed from all offices. Mr. Moody was sen- 
tenced to imprisonment for six months. Vaughan's Journal 
says, "It is said that Justice Green is much afflicted for what he 
has done, but Roby not. Peter Coffin can scarce show his head 
in any company." The following is found in Mr. Moody's 
church record : 

Not long after Green repented and made his acknowledgment to the 
pastor who frankly forgave him. Roby was excommunicated out of 
Hampton church for a common drunkard and died excommunicate, and 
was by his friends thrown into a hole near his house, for fear of an 
arrest of his carcass. Barefoot fell into a languishing distemper, whereof 
he died. Coffin was taken by the Indians, at Cochecho, 1689, — his house 
and mill burnt, himself not being slain but dismissed. The Lord give him 
repentance, though no signs of it have yet appeared. 

This is an attempt to point out the divine hand of retri- 
bution and shows something of the vindictive spirit masked by 
pious phrases. To make out his case against his judges he 
should have been able to record that the Almighty allowed the 
Indians to torture Peter Coffin unto death, and Barefoot ought 
have come to an untimely end earlier than he did, 1688. Vaughan 
records that "Peter Coffin saith it is a nine days' wonder and 
will soon be forgotten." During the imprisonment of Mr. 
Moody there was preaching a part of the time by Rev. Seaborn 


Cotton of Hampton and Rev. Samuel Phillips of Rowley, but for 
a space of nine sabbaths there was, as Vaughan said, "a famine 
of the word of God," which much distressed him as he lay in 
prison. No other minister of the province was molested. The 
governor sent word to Rev. Seaborn Cotton, that after he had 
prepared his soul (whatever that might mean), he was coming 
to church to demand the sacrament of him, as he had of Mr. 
Moody, whereupon Mr. Cotton withdrew to Boston, reckoning 
prudence to be the better part of valor. 

Mr. Moody was released from prison on condition of his 
leaving the province. He was employed as a preacher at the 
first church, Boston, and was invited to succeed Mr. Rogers 
as President of Harvard College, which position he declined. 
He visited Portsmouth from time to time till 1692, when he was 
recalled to his old pastorate and continued therein till his death, 
while on a visit to Boston, July 4, 1697. 

Not being able to pursuade the assembly to impose taxes 
according to his wishes Cranfield attempted to collect rates with- 
out their consent. This he did on the basis of a clause in his 
commission, "And for supporting the charge of the government 
of our said Province of New Hampshire our will and pleasure 
is, and we do, by these presents, authorize and require you and 
our said Council to continue such taxes and impositions as have 
been and are now levied and imposed upon the inhabitants 
thereof, and that the same be levied and distributed to those 
ends in the best and most equal manner that can be until a 
general assembly of our said province shall have considered and 
agreed upon the fittest ways for raising of taxes in such pro- 
portions as may be requisite for defraying the charge of the 
government." This had been done without objection at the 
beginning of more than one administration. The Assembly 
thought to block the wheels of government by refusing to pass 
any bill for taxation. Under such conditions was not Cranfield 
justified in continuing the old assessments and rates? Was this 
an act of usurpation or a necessary act in order to the existence 
of any government whatever? Could the governor and all under 
officers be expected to serve for nothing? Some later governors 
did, but Cranfield was not equally self-sacrificing. He was too 
stubborn and resourceful for his opponents. Indeed, it is quite 
remarkable that this one man, unsupported by soldiers and war 


vessels, managed to hold in check and compel to do his will 
about three thousand people, the then reckoned population of 
New Hampshire. Gradually he selected a few councilors and a 
few sheriffs and appointed judges and packed a jury, who all 
did his bidding, and the people for a long time did nothing more 
than to send agents and petitions to the king. Why did they 
not drive him out of the province, as Andros was sent away? 
Because not all the wrongdoing was on one side. They opposed, 
for the most part, passive resistance to shrewd activity, and they 
got the worst of it. Cranfield secured by fines, forfeitures, pres- 
ents and taxes the money that he wanted and then got himself 
transferred by the authorities in London to a more lucrative 
position. The same troubles continued in New Hampshire after 
his departure, as we shall see. 

As an inducement to get the assembly to assess taxes the 
governor published information that an attack by eastern In- 
dians was imminent, and he went to New York to secure the 
aid of two hundred Mohawks, at an expense of forty pounds 
for his journey. The assembly assented to the continuance of 
the former taxes, and an order was given to fortify the meeting 
houses. Some ammunition was distributed. But the major part 
of the taxes collected went for purposes other than defense. 
The council voted, January 2. 1684, that the governor should 
be paid one hundred pounds per annum from the time of his 
arrival, together with his traveling expenses to New York. 
Thus he collected his back pay. The council further voted "that 
the residue of the said rate be disposed of for and toward the 
payment of salaries to the several officers, and discharging the 
public debts of the said province, which have been contracted 
since the arrival of the said Governor."^ Thus they found as 
easy a way to fix and collect their own salaries as public officials 
and legislators do now, and the dear people uncomplainingly 
paid the taxes then as now. History repeats itself. A few de- 
termined men of brains in high office do about as they please, 
whether the government be a so-called monarchy or republic. 
The dear people have not sufficiently learned this ; they can be 
fooled most of the time, if not all the time. Unless offices are 
filled by good and wise men. in vain are treaties, campaign prom- 

6 Coll. N. H. Hist. Society, Vol. VIII, p. 223. 


ises, laws and former customs. Greed in high office vrorks the 
ruin of nations. 

The mission of Nathaniel Weare in England was so far suc- 
cessful that an order was sent to Cranfield to make use of an 
assembly in raising money. He complied with the letter of the 
order, called an assembly, did not like some of the men elected 
by the people, men like John Gerrish and John Pickering whom 
he had made constables in spite, and so at once dissolved the 
assembly once more, writing home that he feared their rebellious 
and mutinous disposition and asking again for a frigate to put 
them in awe of his authority. Seeing that the end of his admin- 
istration was approaching he asked for leave to go to the West 
Indies for his health. Then warrants were issued for collecting 
more taxes, without consent of the assembly. Again he called 
an assembly, this time to pass an act to suppress piracy and 
robbery on the high seas, which when they had done, he sent 
them home like boys dismissed from school. 

The men made constables by way of punishment declared 
that they were unable to collect the tax-bills. The provost mar- 
shal, Thomas Thurton, the unpopular official whom we have 
often met, was then ordered to collect the taxes, with 
the assistance of the constables. He went to Exeter, fol- 
lowed by some of the citizens of Hampton with clubs. A long 
deposition of his describes the whole fracas. It was on the 
twenty-ninth of December, 1684, that he went to Exeter and 
demanded of John Foulsom a fine of fifty shillings that the 
justices had set upon him for failing to collect the taxes in 
Exeter. Thurton was warned that he would meet with a red 
hot spit and scalding water. The wife of Moses Oilman said 
that she had had the water boiling for two days. Among the 
club-men who followed Thurton from Hampton was Joseph 
Swett and John Sanborn, and they were joined by others at 
Exeter, the minister, the Rev. John Cotton, being among them 
with his shillalah. The constables were roughly handled and 
assailed with bad language. The clubs were not for show alone, 
and the word, "rogue," so often used at that time, seemed to 
comprehend the sum of all villainy. The following Friday 
Thurton attempted to arrest and carry to prison Samuel Sher- 
burne of Hampton, and for so doing was beaten while Sherburne 
was making his escape. Justice Henry Roby also received his 


share of the cudgeling. A company of twenty or thirty men, 
armed with clubs, seized Thurton, beat and bound him, put a 
rope around his neck, hauled him out of the house by a rope 
that tied his hands, pulled and cudgeled him for a mile and a 
half and then put him upon a horse that they had commandeered 
and drove him out of the province into Salisbury, his legs being 
tied beneath the horse's belly and he suffering intense pain. 
Here he was detained forty hours. Moses Oilman declared that 
some of Exeter and Hampton had signed a writing, that they 
would oppose the government and pay no taxes that were as- 
sessed unlawfully. A troop of horse under Mason was ordered 
out to suppress disorders, but no trooper responded to the call. 
The people, after three years of oppression, were beginning to 
wake up. 

Nathanial Weare, the agent of New Hampshire, made slow 
progress in London, on account of the difficulty of getting depos- 
itions and copies of records from home. Every obstruction 
possible was put in his way. The imprisonment of William 
Vaughan had this in view. Nevertheless the first charges against 
Cranfield had the effect to stay his course, and the Lords of 
Trade sent orders to him to allow depositions and copies of 
public records to be taken. After such had been received at 
London, copies thereof with charges were sent to Cranfield for 
his answer. He at once suspended the Mason suits, ordered the 
desired information to be furnished and retaliated by saying that 
he also had difficulty in obtaining copies of records, because the 
town clerks had concealed their books, declaring on oath that 
they knew not where the books were nor who had taken them. 

A new complaint was made against governor Cranfield, and 
depositions and other evidences were presented to fortify the 
complaint. It was as follows : 

1. That at the first session of the general assembly Mr. Cranfield 
challenged the power of legislature and settlement of affairs to himself 
against the words of his commission, which are (you and they &c), meaning 
the general assembly, shall, &c., which words (and they) he affirmed were 
put in by mistake of the clerk in engrossing his commission, and so 
entered it in the council books, and desired the assembly to make like 
entry, and delivered a copy of his commission without those words (and 

2. He hath, by purchase or mortgage from Robert Mason, made himself 


owner of the Province, and so is not likely to act impartially between 
Mason and the inhabitants. 

3. He hath made courts whereof both judges and jurors have agreed 
with Mason for their own lands, and some taken deeds from him of other 
men's lands, so as they are engaged in interest to set up Mr. Mason's 

4. That Mason has sued forty persons and cast all, and the governor's 
interposal to state the cases, as by his comimission he is directed, was 
refused, though desired : That the defendant's pleas, grounded on the 
law and statutes of England, were rejected. 

5. That they can not reconcile the verdict with the attachment, nor 
the execution with the verdict, nor their practice under color of execution 
with either. 

6. That the charge of every action is £6, though nothing done in 
court but part of the commission read, and some blank grants without 
hand or seal, and those not read for one case in ten. 

7. The court charges are exacted in money, which many have not, 
who, though they tender cattle, are imprisoned for them. 

8. The ministers, contrary to his Majesty's commission, which grants 
liberty of conscience to all Protestants, have their dues withheld from 
them, even those dues before Mr. Cranfield came, and are threateneed 
with six months' imprisonment for not administering the sacrament accord- 
ing to the liturgy of the church of England. 

9. That though the general assembly agreed Spanish money should 
pass according to weight, the governor and council have ordered pieces 
of eight shall pass at £6, though under weight. 

10. That men are commonly compelled to enter into bonds of great 
penalty to appear and answer what shall be objected, when no crime is 

11. That they have few laws but those made by the Governor and 
Council, when his commission directed the general assembly should make 

12. That the courts are kept in a remote corner of the Province, and 
the sheriff was a stranger and of no visible estate, and so not responsible 
for jailers.^ 

7 The articles of complaint, as published in Belknap's History, in the 
State Papers, and in the eighth volume of the Coll. of N. H. Hist. Society, 
differ, and here the copy is followed which looks most reasonable. At the 
end of article sixth the word "ten" seems more probable than "time." At 
the end of article twelfth the word "jailers" fits the sense better than 
"failures," which is used by Belknap. Another article is found in Belknap's 
copy, which does not appear in the other authorites, inserted after the 
fifth article, "That the verdict found the land sued for according to the 
royal commission and instructions, and that commission only gave power 
to state the case, if Mason and the people could not agree ; but the 
execution took land and all." This is in harmony with the charges first 
made. Indeed these articles of complaint cover the same ground as the 
first charges. In the ninth article Belknap's "though under weight" is pre- 
ferred to "each thousand light" found in the other authorities. 


A brief of the case against Cranfield is very interesting, but 
contains little of historical value beyond what has been already 
stated. The Lords of Trade reported to the king's council upon 
three of the charges adversely to Cranfield, and, their report 
having been approved, they wrote to Cranfield, under date of 
April 29, 1685, in which letter they say, "We are commanded 
hereby to signify unto you that you have not pursued your 
instructions in reference to the propriety of the soil which Rob- 
ert Mason, Esquire, claims in the Province of New-Hampshire, 
inasmuch as you were directed that in case the inhabitants of 
New-Hampshire should refuse to agree with the said Mason, 
you should interpose and endeavor to reconcile all differences, 
which, if you could not bring to effect, you were then to send 
to his Majesty such cases, fairly and impartially stated, together 
with your opinion, for his Majesty's determination; instead 
whereof you have caused courts to be held in New-Hampshire, 
and permitted titles of land to be decided there, and unreasonable 
costs to be allowed, without first representing the particular cases 
to his Majesty. And yet, although it be his Majesty's undoubted 
prerogative to set and determine the price and value of coin 
within his Majesty's dominions, you have not done well in di- 
recting any alterations therein without his Majesty's special 
order. In both which 3^ou have been wanting in your duty to 
his Majesty." They then ordered a suspension of the suits 
against Mason, till the case of Vaughan should be decided on 

On receipt of this letter, his request for leave of absence 
having been granted, Cranfield went to England by way of 
Jamaica, and there he obtained the collectorship of Barbadoes. 
It is said that there he paid special attention to masters of vessels 
and other persons who went thither from the Pascataqua. He 
must have collected some wealth, for he is said to have presented 
to the king a ship of war, during the reign of William III. He 
died about the beginning of the eighteenth century and was 
buried in the cathedral church at Bath, England. 

An inclination to write as champions of the people of Ne\T 
Hampshire may have led some historians to portray the char- 
acter of Cranfield in too dark a hue. His career after he left 
the province does not seem to sustain such a portraiture. That 
he took unfair measures to secure revenue to himself can not be 


doubted, but he was goaded thereto by the refusal to grant him 
any salary. As for exercise of arbitrary power, most of it was 
granted to him in his commission, as the only way of subduing 
the people to the decisions of councils and courts in England. 
His acts of meanness in fines and imprisonments were through 
juries of New Hampshire men, and were done in the spirit of 
retaliation. It can not be questioned that he had unusual abil- 
ities and courage, and that he found a ready number of sup- 
porters in his schemes to secure the asserted rights of Mason 
and himself. His aim was unwise, and his methods were in part 
unworthy ; he could not well correct the latter without abandon- 
ing the former. Nothing would satisfy the holders of lands in 
the four towns but the complete abandonment of the claims of 
Mason, with perhaps some slight compensation therefor from 
the towns as such. Perhaps Mason and his agents ought to 
'have thus compromised. To us, at this distance, they seem to 
have been pig-headed, but to persons reared in the England of 
that time their conduct was what might be expected of persons 
who had received large grants of land from the king. To yield 
such grants to squatters without a struggle could not be ex- 
pected, would have been thought dishonorable, and in the strug- 
gle for what each party thought to belong to it nobody was too 
punctilious about points of honor and legality. The purpose of 
each was to win, without offense if possible, with offense if 
necessary. The people of New Hampshire won, and therefore 
posterity justifies about all they did in opposition to Mason and 
Cranfield. Their representations have been taken at face value, 
while the letters of Cranfield and Randolph and others of like 
spirit that followed them have been largely discounted. 

In his last letter to the Lords of Trade, January 6, 1684-5, 
Cranfield thus writes : 'T esteem it the greatest happiness that 
ever I had in my life that your Lordships have given me an 
opportunity to remove from these unreasonable people, and the rather 
that your Lordsihips and the world may see it is those things 
enjoined in His Majesty's Commission they cavil at, and not 
my person, and time will show that no man shall be acceptable 
to them that puts His Majesty's commands in execution." This 
is pretty near the truth as to both history and prophecy .^ 

8N. H. State Papers, Vol. XVII, p. 602. 

Chapter VII 


Chapter VII 


"Walter Barefoot at the Head of Government — Scrap at His House — Robert 
Mason Thrown into the Fire — Too Much Stimulant — Charter of Massa- 
chusetts Forfeited — Governor Joseph Dudley — Sir Edmund Andros Ap- 
pointed Governor — Death of Robert Mason — Revolt in Boston against 
Andros — New^ Hampshire without Government — Four Little Independ- 
ent Republics — Convention at Portsmouth — Hampton Wants Initiative 
and Referendum — Indian Attacks Necessitate Union — Petition Puts New 
Hampshire once more under Jurisdiction of Massachusetts — Province 
Sold to Samuel Allen — Extent of the Province — Lieutenant Governor 
John Usher — Grant of Dunstable by Massachusetts — The Million Acre 

THE departure of Governor Cranfield left Captain Walter 
Barefoot, as his deputy, at the head of g-overnment in New 
Hampshire. His sway was brief and uneventful, yet the same 
spirit possessed him that he had caught from his predecessor. 
More levies and imprisonments led to the sending of Nathaniel 
Weare a second time to London as agent of the oppressed peo- 
ple of New Hampshire and of William Vaughan in particular, 
whose case seems to have been a test, to determine for all the 
rest the validity of decisions in court against the holders of 
land. The decision on appeal was against Vaughan, yet this 
seems to have settled nothing, because the New Hampshire peo- 
ple felt that matters could not be settled right till they were 
settled in their favor. Weare remained in England from the 
spring of 1686 till sometime previous to June 19, 1689, when a 
meeting of the proprietors of Hampton was held, to raise their 
proportion of his expenses, seventy-five pounds. What he 
accomplished in England does not appear. 

The opposition to deputy governor Barefoot must have been 
Tceen and wide spread, for it brought discord into his own family. 
His sister, Sarah, had married Thomas Wiggin, son of the Capt. 
Thomas Wiggin who led the settlement of Dover Neck. Robert 
Mason was lodging with Barefoot at the latter's house on Great 
Island, now New Castle, when Thomas Wiggin and Anthony 



Nutter, who had been a member of the council and was a prom- 
inent citizen of Dover, came to talk over the claims and pro- 
ceedings of Mason. What followed is best told in the words 
of Mason's deposition, taken March 8, 1683, before Richard 
Chamberlain : 

I, Robert Mason, Esq., proprietor of the Province of New-Hampshire^ 
do make oath, that upon the 30th day of December last, being in my lodgings 
at the house of Walter Barefoot, Esq., deputy governor, and seeing Thomas 
Wiggins and Anthony Nutter, of the said Province, yeomen, talking with 
the deputy governor, I bid them welcome, and invited them to stay to 
supper. After supper, upon some discourse, Wiggins said he and others 
had read the papers I had set up, but they did not regard them at a 
rush, for I had nothing to do in the Province, nor had one foot of land 
therein, nor ever should have, and withal did give very abusive and 
provoking language, so that I commanded Wiggins to go out of the 
room, which he did not, but asked the deputy governor whose the house 
was, Barefoot's or Mason's. The deputy governor told him that the 
house and servants were mine, and entreated him to be gone and not tO' 
make a disturbance. I then opened the door, and took Wiggins by the 
arm to put him forth, saying he should not stay there to affront me in 
my own house. Whereupon Wiggins took hold of my cravat, and being 
a big, strong man, pulled me to the chimney and threw me upon the 
fire, and lay upon me, and did endeavor to strangle me bv grasping my 
windpipe, that I could hardly breathe. My left foot was much scorched 
and swelled, my coat, periwig and stockings were burnt, and had it not 
been for the deputy governor, who was all that time endeavoring to pluck 
Wiggins off from me, I do verily believe I had been murdered. I was 
no sooner got out of the fire but the said Wiggins laid hands on the 
deputy governor, threw him into the fire, and fell upon him so that two 
of the deputy governor's ribs were broke. I did with much difficulty pull 
Wiggins off the deputy governor. Wiggins being risen upon his feet did 
again assault me and the deputy governor, and threw the deputy governor 
down ; thereupon I called to a maid servant to fetch my sword, saying 
the villain would murder the deputy governor. The servant coming with 
my sword in the scabbard, I took hold thereof, but it was snatched out 
of my hands by Anthony Nutter, who was present in the room, and did 
see the assault made both upon the deputy governor and myself, and hindered 
me from relieving the deputy governor. Nor did the said Nutter give 
any help or assistance to the deputy governor.l 

Walter Barefoot had two ribs broken and lost a tooth in the 
fray. Two servant maids testified that Anthony Nutter "did 
walk about the room in a laughing manner" and gave no assist- 
ance to either Barefoot or Mason. Yet Barefoot, in his will, 

1 Coll. of N. H. Hist. Society, Vol. VHI, pp. 265-6. 



1688, gave nearly all his houses and lands to this same Thomas 
Wiggin, "my brother in law, and to my sister Sarah his wife," 
so that the scrap did not occasion any lasting ill will. The 
contention was not with Barefoot but with the deputy governor 
and friend of Robert Mason, the oppressor. From other evi- 
dences concerning Barefoot and the habits of the times the con- 
clusion is forced that the four convivial neighbors had some- 
thing for supper stronger than tea. It was then thought that 
even a just cause could be better prosecuted with the aid of a 

Here we bid farewell to Walter Barefoot, physician, captain 
of the fort on Great Island, councilor, judge and deputy gov- 
ernor. He was a royalist, a friend to Mason, a man of wealth 
and power, little moved by sympathy either with the political 
leaders or with the common people, self-sufficient, social, an 
adventurer in the new world. His like does not appear again in 
the early history of New Hampshire. 

In the year 1685 the people of the Massachusetts Bay Colony 
were summoned to defend their charter or allow it to be forfeited. 
They chose the latter course. The same year the king, Charles 
11, died, and his successor, James II, on the eighth day of 
October, commissioned Joseph Dudley to be first president of 
the council, to exercise with them authority over the united 
provinces of New England, including the Colony of Massachu- 
setts Bay, the provinces of New Hampshire and Maine, and the 
Narraganset Country, otherwise known as the King's Province. 
The members of the council were William Stoughton, deputy 
president, Simon Bradstreet, the last governor, Robert Mason, 
the proprietor of New Hampshire, John Fitz Winthrop, John 
Pynchon, Peter Bulkley, Edward Randolph, Wait Winthrop, 
Richard Wharton, John Usher, Nathaniel Saltonstall, Barthol- 
emew Gedney, Jonathan Tyng, Dudley Bradstreet, John 
Hinckes and Edward Tyng.- The only member from New 
Hampshire was John Hinckes. This new form of government 
came into existence May 25, 1686, and was of short duration. 
It seems to have been designed as only a forerunner, to prepare 

2 The names of the councilors are here given in the order used by 
Belknap. Dudley's commission gives a different order and also includes 
the name of Francis Champernowne, who died in the spring of 1687. 


the way for a sterner administration, just as President Cutt had 
prepared the way for Cranfield in New Hampshire. Joseph Dud- 
ley was well known in the colonies as the son of Gov. Thomas 

The noticeable feature of Dudley's commission was the 
omission of any reference to any assembly or representative 
government, to which the people had been accustomed. It was 
the feeling- of the king and privy council that Massachusetts as 
well as New Hampshire had abused the liberties conferred by 
their charter and commission, and that henceforth they should 
be governed by the king and not by themselves. On the tenth 
of June the president and council issued an order for settling of 
county courts, "that they shall consist of such member or mem- 
bers of the council in each county and province as shall be 
therein resident," together with such justices of the peace as 
shall be commissioned thereto. The courts in New Hampshire 
were to be held at Great Island and Portsmouth, a superior 
court being held in Boston three times a year. 

Sir Edmund Andros was appointed captain general and 
governor in chief of New England in May 1686 and arrived in 
Boston December thirtieth. He had been governor of New 
York from 1674 to 1682 and subsequently served as gov- 
ernor of Virginia and of the island of Jersey. The colony 
of Plymouth, not mentioned in the commission of Dudley, was 
added to the jurisdiction of Andros. His commission implies 
the continuance of the former council, but gives him power and 
authority to suspend any member thereof at his own pleasure. 
Any five councilors constituted a quorum and vacancies were to 
be filled by royal authority, unless by chance the number at 
any time fell to less than seven, in which case Andros might 
appoint some of the principal inhabitants to be confirmed by the 
king. The governor general and his council had power to make 
laws, subject to confirmation by the king, to levy taxes, estab- 
lish courts, appoint judges and other necessary officers, have 
charge of military forces, pardon offenders, etc. Again there was 
not mention of representative government, and the people had 
nothing to say about their own taxes. 

The brief rule of Andros had little to do with the people 
of New Hampshire, except that Mason found in him an unex- 
pected opponent. Since Andros had the power of granting land, 


Mason's authority to give leases was denied by James Graham, 
the attorney-general. Effort was made to transfer Mason's suits 
to the supreme court at Boston, by the favor of the chief Justice, 
Dudley, but the death of Mason suddenly put an end to his 
hopes and the fears of the landowners. While accompanying 
Sir Edmund Andros, as one of his council, from New York to 
Albany, he died at Esopus, about September, 1688, in the fifty- 
ninth year of his age, leaving two sons, John and Robert. 

The news of a revolution in England, leading to the over- 
throw of James II and the coronation of WiUiam, Prince of 
Orange, emboldened the people of Massachusetts, and of Boston 
in particular, to strike a blow for freedom. There is said to 
have been a foolish rumor of an intended massacre in Boston. 
Andros was declared by rumor to be a papist and to have designs 
of bringing the Indians against the settlers. There was not 
the slightest foundation for either report. On the contrary he 
had led his forces in person to subdue the eastern Indians. But 
on the morning of the eighteenth of April, 1689, Boston was in 
arms, and the country around flocked to assist in the pulling 
down of a despotic seat of power. The former governor, Simon 
Bradstreet, now one of the council and eighty-four years of 
age, became the head of a council of safety. Andros, Joseph 
Dudley, Edward Randolph, James Sherlock, formerly sheriff and 
member of the council at Portsmouth, and others to the number 
of twenty-five, some say fifty, were seized and put in prison, 
where they remained till royal authority ordered them sent to 
London for trial. All were acquitted. A candid perusal of the 
Andros Tracts, wherein the arguments of both sides are set 
forth, would convince the impartial reader of today that there 
was little against Andros and his assistants personally, that he 
was not the tyrant alleged, but that the opposition of the people 
was really against the system, under which he governed. They 
were taxed and ruled without any representation, either in Lon- 
don or at home. Too much power was given to the governor. 
The days of constitutional monarchies, much less of republics, 
had not yet come, but the desires and convictions of the common 
people were flowing that way. The subsequent career of Andros 
shows that he was a wise and trusted governor and a man of 
unblemished character. 

The other New England colonies quickly resumed the form 


of government to which they were accustomed before the union 
of the provinces under a governor-general, and in the course of 
one month affairs were going on much as under the old charters, 
Simon Bradstreet acting as governor of Massachusetts. New 
Hampshire could not reassume the government under which they 
had lived as a royal province, neither could it at once come 
under the government of the Bay Colony. There was some 
jealousy among the towns, particularly on the part of Hampton, 
whose people thought that Portsmouth desired and designed 
to lead and control the other towns. The Indians were threat- 
ening the towns, and the need of some form of government was 
urgent. The authority of former magistrates and officers was 
in question. Nobody had right to tax the people, even for their 
own defence. The towns were as independent as they were 
before the first union with Massachusetts. They met and voted 
what they pleased, but there was no authority to enforce law. 
Some gentlemen of Portsmouth and Great Island sent a letter 
to the other towns, inviting them to send delegates to a con- 
vention to be held July ii, 1689, to "consider of what shall be 
judged meet and convenient to be done by the several towns in 
the Province for their peace and safety, until we shall have 
orders from the crown of England." Such was the language 
of the people of Hampton. Their delegates, Ensign Henry Dow, 
Sergt. John Smith and Mr. Joseph Smith, were instructed to 
bring back a full account of the proceedings of the convention, 
but had no power to act without further authorization by the 
town. There is no record that this proposed convention was 
ever held. Perhaps its futility was foreseen, since the towns 
had not given equal powers to their delegates. 

The council for safety, at Boston, in October sent a request 
to Richard Martyn, William Vaughan and Richard Waldron, 
asking that the Province of New Hampshire send an agent to 
meet other commissioners at Boston to consult about the Indian 
wars. The towns agreed, though eighteen persons in Hampton 
dissented from the vote. William Vaughan was chosen com- 
missioner and met with the others in Boston, December sixth. 
The same month Hampton chose three men, Nathaniel Weare, 
Samuel Sherburne and Henry Dow, to meet persons chosen from 
other towns and consult about the establishment of some gov- 
ernment, but the attempt was abortive. At the end of the year. 


1689, New Hampshire was still without a common government. 
There were four independent little republics, Hampton at least 
too independent and jealous for all its particular rights. The 
habits of life of the first settlers made every man a law unto 
himself. Nothing was right without his consent. When neigh- 
boring settlers united for mutual protection and advantage, then 
they claimed independence of all other similar unions. A larger 
union of towns was consented to only as the inhabitants saw 
that it would be good for them as individual communities. The 
larger view, of the greatest good to all the towns and all the 
colonies as a whole, it took long time and hard experience to 
gain. In January of 1689-90 Dover, Portsmouth and Exeter 
elected delegates with full powers to meet in convention to de- 
vise some method of government for defence against the common 
enemy. The persons chosen by Dover were Capt. John Wood- 
man, Capt. John Gerrish, Lieut. John Tuttle, Mr. Thomas 
Edgerly, Lieut. John Roberts and Mr. Nicholas Follet. Ports- 
mouth's choice were Major William Vaughan, Richard Waldron, 
Nathaniel Fryer, Robert Elliot, Thomas Cobbet and Capt. John 
Pickering. Exeter sent to the convention Robert Wadley, Wil- 
liam Moore and Samuel Leavitt. Hampton chose Henry Green, 
Henry Dow, Nathaniel Weare, Capt. Samuel Sherburne, Morris 
Hobbs, Sen., and Mr. Edward Gove, but no pledge was given 
to abide by the decisions of the convention unless a majority of 
the commisioners from Hampton should agree thereto. The 
convention met in Portsmouth, January 24, 1690, and agreed 
upon a simple form of government, a president, a secretary and 
a treasurer to be chosen by major vote of the whole province 
and a council of ten persons, three of whom were to be of 
Portsmouth and Hampton each and two of Dover and Exeter 
each. These were to call an assembly of not more than three 
from each town, and together they were to take such action 
and make such laws as seemed to be wise and necessary for 
the preservation of peace, the punishment of offenders and de- 
fense against the common enemy. All signed their names to 
the document. The town of Hampton voted not to chose officers 
according to the plan agreed upon, and so the whole plan failed. 
The paper was drawn up in the handwriting of John Pickering, 
a lawyer of Portsmouth and a member of the convention. In 
Hampton "a very large majority seemed to be fearful and sus- 


picious that the other towns did not intend to act according to 
their professions, but wished to bring the people of this town 
under them. The minority regarded this view as uncharitable 
and unjust; but they were referred by the majority to some 
former acts of some of the towns, which appeared to afiford 
ground for being jealous of them."^ It is seen that the people 
of Hampton preferred to keep power in their own hands rather 
than to entrust it to delegates. They claimed the initiative and 
the referendum, and after more than two centuries we recognize 
their wisdom, though caution may have been too great for the 
pressing necessity of the times, and jealousy may have been 
unfounded. Already there was talk about reunion with Massa- 
chusetts, of which some were in favor, while others opposed. 

The attack of the Indians upon Cochecho and other parts 
of the province brought matters to a crisis. There must be 
union and cooperation under lawful authority, or destruction by 
the savages awaited them all. Hence a petition was drawn up 
and hastily carried throughout the four towns for signatures. 
Three hundred and seventy-two persons signed it. The petition 
was addressed to the governor and council of the colony of 
Massachusetts Bay and asked for "government and protection, 
as formerly, until their Majesties' pleasure shall be known con- 
cerning us : hereby obliging ourselves to a due submission 
thereto, and payment of our equal proportion (according to our 
capacity), of the charge that shall arise for the defence of the 
country against the common enemy ; praying also that such per- 
sons may be commissionated to command the militia as have 
already been or shall be chosen by the trained soldiers in the 
respective towns." The petition was readily granted and thus 
New Hampshire came once more, for a short time, under the 
government of Massachusetts, and orders were given for town 
meetings for the election of proper officers. The petition had been 
taken to Boston by William Vaughan and Jahn Pickering on the 
twenty-eighth of February, and William Vaughan, Richard Martyn 
and Nathaniel Fryer at once were appointed magistrates. The objec- 
tions of Hampton were set forth at length in a letter of Nathaniel 
Weare to Major Robert Pike; that out of about two hundred 
inhabitants over twenty-one years of age less than fifty had 

3Dow's History of Hamrpton, Vol. I, p. 117. 


signed the petition and some of these were minors, while some of 
the principal inhabitants of the town, including Weare himself, 
had not been shown the petition ; that formerly Hampton had 
chosen her own magistrates and could not now see why magis- 
trates from Portsmouth should be thrust upon them without 
even a majority vote of the town ; and that Massachusetts had 
not authority to appoint officers and make laws for New Hamp- 
shire until such authority should be conferred by the crown, 
or by a majority vote in town meeting. They feared that a gov- 
ernment so imposed would cause "distractions, heart-burnings, 
disobedience to the supposed commanders, public declarations, 
remonstrances set forth, that might reach as far as England, 
and so make way for a person to be deputed by the crown, that 
might under color of a commission exercise his own will." 
Hampton evidently felt that Portsmouth was railroading a 
scheme through to suit the wishes of the bosses of that place 
and that would give to them the positions of power, as formerly 
under Massachusetts rule, and Nathaniel Weare was long-headed 
enough to see through the scheme to its probable outcome. But 
the unanswerable argument of the presence of hostile Indians 
and French upon their borders constrained the voters of Hamp- 
ton to submit to the wishes of other towns. Hampton favored 
a plan that would give them a greater measure of home rule.* 
The political leaders at Portsmouth wanted annexation to 
Massachusetts; the common people were divided on this ques- 
tion. The king and his council were told, perhaps by Edward 
Randolph, perhaps by Nathaniel Weare, perhaps by many others, 
that the people of New Hampshire did not desire union with the 
Bay Colony. Such union was desired by the leaders in Boston, 
and Rev. Cotton Mather, their agent sent to London, earnestly 
sought it. They were looking toward practical independence 
and increase of dominion, as ambitious as Canada is today, 
scorning to be a dependency and willing to be an ally on equal 
terms. The king had other plans, still maintaing the validity 
of the grants made to Capt. John Mason and wishing to aid 
Samuel Allen, merchant, of London, who, for two thousand 

4 See Weare's letter in N. H. Prov. Papers, Vol. II, pp. 43-46; Dow's 
Hist, of Hampton, Vol. I, pp. 113-119, and especially Tuttle's Historical 
Papers, pp. 197-214. 


seven hundred and fifty pounds, had bought, of the two sons 
of Robert Mason, April 27, 1691, all their claim to lands in New 
England that had been granted to Capt. John Mason. By a 
previous agreement and a fictitious sale, known as a fine and 
recovery, since it put a finis, or end to all legal dispute, the 
entail had been docked, or set aside. In this "fine" it is inter- 
esting to learn the estimated extent of Mason's claim. His pos- 
sessions are named "the Mannor of Mason Hall with the 
appurtenances and seven thousand Messuages, fifty Mills, six 
thousand Gardens, a hundred thousand Acres of Land, a hun- 
dred thousand Acres of Meadow, a hundred thousand Acres of 
Pasture, one million and a hundred thousand Acres of Wood, 
two hundred thousand of acres of Marsh & Moss Ground, a 
hundred thousand Acres of fresh Marsh, a hundred acres of 
Salt Marsh, a hundred thousand acres of Ozirs, a hundred 
thousand Acres of . . ., two hundred thousand of acres of Land 
Covered by Water, a hundred Pound Rents Common of Pasture 
for all manner of Cattle, free fishery and free W^arrin with the 
appurtenances in New Hampr, Main, Masonia, Laconia, Mason 
Hall, Mariana in New England." This shows that Mason Hall 
was not the name of a house, as some have supposed, but of 

Belknap says^ that the inhabitants "again assembled by 
deputies in convention and sent over a petition to the king, 
praying that they might be annexed to Massachusetts. The 
petition was presented to Sir Henry Ashurst and they were 
amused with some equivocal promises of success by the earl of 
Nottingham; but Allen's importunity coinciding with the king's 
inclination effectually frustrated their attempt." 

The commission of Samuel Allen as governor and com- 
mander in chief of New Hampshire was dated March i, 1692. 
Therein the same powers were granted to him as to former 
governors and in nearly the same words. Also John Usher, 
Esquire, was named as one of the council and lieutenant gov- 
ernor, having all the authority of the governor in the latter's 
absence. The governor could call and prorogue assemblies at 
will, suspend and appoint members of the council, and veto any 

5N. H. State Papers. Vol. XXIX, pp. 143-147. 
6 Page 123. 


laws or bills passed. The councilors named in Allen's instruc- 
tions were, besides John Usher, John Hinckes, Nathaniel Fryer, 
Thomas Graffort, Peter Coffin, Henry Green, Robert Elliot, John 
Gerrish, John Walford, and John Lowe. Six of the ten coun- 
cilors were of Portsmouth. William Vaughan, Nathaniel Weare 
and Colonel Richard Waldron were added to the council a little 

John Usher was a citizen of Boston and had been a member 
of Governor Andros' council. He became the actual governor 
of New Hampshire, since Samuel Allen, the proprietor now in 
place of Robert Mason, did not appear to execute the duties of 
that office. Historians have fostered the supposition that Usher 
was made lieutenant governor, because he was son in law of 
Allen, but John Usher and Elizabeth Allen were married in 
Hampton, March 11, 1698-9, or six years after his appointment 
as lieutenant governor. His first wife was Elizabeth, daughter 
of Peter and Elizabeth Lidgett, who died August 17, 1698. It 
appears, then, that family relationship had nothing to do with 
the appointment of Usher, and that he had no interest in Allen's 
claim to lands at the time when he was made lieutenant gov- 
ernor. He arrived with the commission and assumed the duties 
of his office, August 13, 1692, and once more and finally New 
Hampshire was free from the government of Massachusetts. 
In real freedom there was no immediate gain. "Liberty of 
conscience to all persons except Papists" is granted in the gov- 
ernor's instructions. 

The first settlers built their log cabins near the rivers, which 
were the natural and only highways. The second and third 
generations began to push inland and build roads. Small col- 
onies got grants of large tracts in the wooded wilderness, 
and the original grantees became proprietors or owners 
of the townships formed. The people from Massachusetts 
spread up the valley of the Merrimack. In the year 1673 
the General Court granted to twenty-six petitioners the town 
of Dunstable, which after the division line was fixed was 
found to contain lands in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. 
The town as originally granted contained about two hundred 
square miles, or one hundred and twenty-eight thousand acres. 
The part in Massachusetts included what is now Tyngsborough, 


the east part of Dunstable, a little of the north part of Pepperell 
and the northeast corner of Townsend. In New Hampshire it 
embraced the town of Litchfield, most of Hudson, the southwest 
part of Londonderry, the west part of Pelham, nearly all of the 
towns of Nashua and Hollis, all of Amherst and Merrimack 
south of the Souhegan river and about two-thirds of the towns 
of Brookline and Milford.® In this section the General Court 
had previously granted extensive farms, varying from three 
hundred to fifteen hundred acres. The first minister was the 
Rev. Thomas Weld of Roxbury; the most prominent settler 
was Col. Jonathan Tyng, who bought of the Indian sachem, 
Wonalancet, October lo, 1685, a tract of land, which extended 
six miles on each side of the river Merrimack and reached from 
a point three miles north of the old Indian fort at Penacook to 
that place at the great pond, or lake Winnepiseogee, which was 
accounted the northern bound of the lands claimed by Massa- 
chusetts. Tyng was acting as agent of a company of men in 
Boston, and to three of them, John Usher, Charles Lidgett and 
Thaddeus McCarty, Mason gave a deed, April 15, 1686, of the 
same land named in the above tract sold by Wonalancet. The 
southerly bound on the west side of the Merrimack was the 
Souhegan river, and on the east side of the Merrimack the south- 
erly bound was land owned by William Brenton, in old Dun- 
stable, later governor of Rhode Island. The price paid was 
thirty pounds and the yearly rent charge was ten shillings. 
One-fourth part of the gold and silver that might be found was 
reserved. This tract was called the million acre purchase. It 
was a long time before any towns were incorporated within this 
tract of land, though now it is the most populous and enterpris- 
ing part of the state, including Manchester and Concord. 

6 Old Dunstable, p. 4. 

Chapter VIII 

Chapter VIII 


Causes of the War— Kancamagus, Chief of the Penacooks— Massacre at 
Cochecho— Death of Major VValdern— Character of Waldern— Escape of 
Mrs. Heard — List of the Slain and Captives — Huckins Garrison at Oyster 
River — Attack on Salmon Falls and Berwick — Massacre at Fox Point 
Doubted — Hope Hood — Seven Killed at Newmarket — Battle of Wheel- 
wright's Pond — Capt. Sherburne Slain at Maquoit — Twenty Killed at 
Sandy Beach — Seventeen Indians Surprised and Slain — Attack on 
Dunstable — Treaty of Peace at Pemaquid— Conduct of French Mis- 
sionaries — Massacre at Oyster River — Sixteen Houses Burned — Nearly 
One Hundred Killed and Captured — Killing of Mrs. Ursula Cutt — Attack 
on the Settlement at Sagamore Creek and Sherburne's Plain — Cochecho 
again Assailed — More Killed at Oyster River— Hannah Dustin — Treaty 
of Peace Made at Casco — Losses Occasioned by the War. 

THE aim of this chapter is not to give a history of the French 
and Indian War, known as King William's War, but only 
to state the part that New Hampshire had in that conflict, with 
only such brief mention of external events as seem necessary 
to show logical connections. The remote causes of the war were 
many, chief among them being the treacherous betrayal of the 
Indians in the sham fight at Dover, about thirteen years before. 
The immediate cause is said by historians to have been the 
plundering of the Baron de St. Castine's house by Governor 
Edmund Andros in 1688. The former lived on debatable land, 
between the Penobscot and the St. Croix, claimed by both France 
and England. Castine had resided many years among the 
eastern Indians, married wives from among them and so was 
able to stir them up to war on the ground of abuses which they 
had received from time to time. There are always reasons 
enough for what we want and are determined to have. Some 
Indians were arrested for stealing cattle, and Andros had them 
liberated and was severely criticized for so dong. Then he sent 
an army of seven hundred soldiers against them, who returned 
without seeing an Indian. The sagamore, Kancamagus, alias 
John Hawkins, chief of the Penacook Indians, did not share the 
friendly feeling toward the whitemen that his father Wonalancet 



and grandfather, Passaconaway, had always manifested. He and 
his small tribe had been in the sham fight and were captured, though 
immediately afterward liberated. Still the Penacooks remem- 
bered that event with cherished feeling of hatred and longing 
for revenge. The soldiers who took part in that fight were from 
Cochecho, Oyster River, Salmon Falls and Kittery, so far as 
the Indians could judge, and these places were marked by them 
for slaughter. Especially Major Richard Waldern and Major 
Charles Frost were held responsible. The tribes of Penacook 
and Pequawket joined to themselves some strange Indians and 
planned the attack on Cochecho, where there were five garrison 
houses. Three of them were on the north side of the River, viz., 
Waldern's near the site of the present county buildings, Otis's 
a short distance north, and Heard's still further north and on a 
little hill, afterward called Garrison Hill. The garrisons on the 
south of the river belonged to Peter Coffin and his son. These 
houses were surrounded by palisades, or walls of timber, and 
the gates thereof, as well as of the house-doors, were secured 
by bolts and bars. Indians were continually coming to Cochecho 
to trade furs for whatever the whitemen might persuade them to 
buy and so they knew well every house in the settlement. 

On the night of the twenty-seventh of June, 1689, no watch 
was kept. This is astonishing, for suspicions had been aroused, 
and rumors were carried to the ear of Major Waldern. He 
thought he knew well the Indians and that there was no danger. 
Old age may have weakened his usual caution. He said he 
could summon a hundred defenders by lifting his finger, and 
told the fearful ones to go and plant their pumpkins. A young 
man told him that the town was full of Indians, but how could 
an aged Major learn caution of a young man? We know the 
story of Gen. Braddock and George Washington. 

Two squaws asked for lodging at each of the garrisons, a 
not unusual thing. Their requests were granted and even they 
were instructed how to unbar and open the doors and gates. 
The hints contained in their ambiguous words were understood 
only when it was too late. They told Major Waldern that some 
Indians were coming to trade with him on the morrow. The 
squaws were admitted to all the garrisons save that of the 
younger Coffin, and they watched by the fires on the hearths. 


When all were asleep but themselves they opened the doors 
and gates to the Indians waiting in the darkness, who entered, 
left a guard at the gate and rushed into the Major's apartment. 
Awakened from sleep he seized his sword and drove them out, 
though he was seventy-four years old. Returning to his room for 
other weapons he was stunned by a blow from behind with a 
hatchet. He was bound and placed in an elbow chair on a 
long table in the hall. The Indians compelled the other mem- 
bers of the household to get them something to eat, and after 
they had feasted they fell to taunting and torturing the man 
they had hated so long. "Here I cross out my account," each 
said as he drew his knife across the Major's breast, referring to 
their unsettled trading in furs. "Who shall judge Indians 
Now?" they tauntingly shouted. Then they cut off his nose 
and ears and forced them into his mouth. Weakened by loss 
of blood he fell from the table and one of the Indians mercifully 
held the Major's own sword so that he fell upon it and put an 
end to his sufferings. An unpublished tradition in Dover still 
recounts that he was in the habit of saying to the Indians that 
his fist weighed a pound when weighing peltry, and so he bore 
down as he thought best in the opposite scale. After he was 
slain, they cut of his hand and weighed it, and to their surprise 
it weighed just a pound, which fact stirred up superstitious fears. 
Thus perished Major Richard Waldern, founder of the 
present city of Dover. He was, undoubtedly, the ablest man in 
the province, if by ability we mean executive force and leader- 
ship in peace and war. That the General Court should five 
times select him their speaker, a man from a distant town 
and not a member of a ring at Boston, is proof of his popularity 
and efficiency as a presiding officer. There was no military 
office in the province higher than his, and he often had supreme 
command of expeditions against the Indians. His counsel was 
sought, and politically he generally had his own way, in spite 
of courts and orders from the king. As builder of mills and 
lumber-merchant he fostered the settlement and enriched him- 
self. For many years he paid no taxes, since he was a member 
of the governor's council. His prominence among the first 
settlers is probably due in part to the fact that he "got there 
first," saw the advantage of a large water-power and had the 
capital to develop it, receiving almost gratuitously large grants 


of land and timber. He was a stern, hard man, as his pitiless 
sentence against the Quaker women shows ; a tricky opportunist, 
as the sham fight testifies; a fomenter of disloyalty to the king 
or an independent patriot, according to our point of view. The 
Indians killed his son-in-law, Abraham Lee, at the same time, 
and carried Mrs. Lee into captivity. The garrison house was 
pillaged and burned. 

The garrison of Richard Otis suffered the same fate. He 
and his son, Stephen Otis, were slain. The latter had married 
Mary Pitman of Oyster River, April i6, 1674. She probably 
was carried into captivity with her children, John, Rose and 
Stephen Otis. Rose Otis returned after 1694 and married John 
Pinkham. The third wife of Richard Otis was Grizel, daughter 
of James Warren of upper Kittery, now South Berwick, Maine. 
Their daughter, Hannah, was killed, having her head dashed 
against the chamber stairs. Grizel Otis and a babe, three months 
old, named Margaret, were carried to Canada, where both were 
baptized in the Roman Catholic Church, the former as Mary 
Madeleine Warren and the latter as Christine. Mrs. Otis mar- 
ried in Canada Philip Robitaile, lived to the age of 89 and had 
several children. Christine Otis married a Frenchman, named 
Le Beau, and had children in Canada. After the death of her 
husband she returned to Dover and married Capt. Thomas 
Baker of Northampton, Massachusetts, and had other children. 
She embraced the Protestant faith, which occasioned an inter- 
esting letter from a priest in Canada, who sought to reconvert 
her, and a reply thereto by Governor William Burnett.^ She 
died February 23, 1773, having lived "a pattern of industry, 
prudence and economy." 

The garrison of Capt. John Heard was saved by the barking 
of a dog and the presence of mind of Elder William Wentworth, 
who fell upon his back so as to escape the bullets of the Indians 
and set his feet against the door, holding it till he had alarmed 
the inmates of the house. He has already been mentioned as 
one of the first settlers of Exeter, and from him were descended 
the governors Wentworth. The wife of John Heard was Eliza- 
beth, daughter of the Rev. Joseph Hull, sometime minister at 
Oyster River and the Isles of Shoals. She and some of her 

IN. H. Hist. Coll. Vol. VIII, pp. 405-427. 


children happened to be at Portsmouth on the night of the 
massacre. Coming up the Cochecho river in a canoe they heard 
the shouting of Indians and the firing of guns, about the break 
of day. They hoped to find refuge at Major Waldern's garrison, 
but they received no answer to their knocks and calls. Looking 
through a crack in the gate they sav^ Indians within and hastily 
fled, meeting with one of Otis's sons, who told them that his 
father and the rest of the family were killed. Mrs. Heard was 
unable to flee further and hid herself in a thicket of barbary 
bushes in the garden and a little later in other bushes about 
thirty rods from the house. Here a young Indian espied her and 
approached with pistol in hand. He peered into the bushes and 
went away. Soon he returned again and stared upon her as 
before. To her inquiry what he wanted he made no reply, but 
went away whooping. She stole away after the garrison had 
been burned, crossed the river on a boom and found shelter in 
the garrison of Captain Gerrish. The reason of her escape was 
this, that when the Indians were captured in the sham fight at 
Cochecho, 1676, a young Indian escaped and found refuge at her 
house. She concealed him and gave him his liberty, a kindness 
which he now requited by shielding her from harm, for Indians 
proverbially nourished gratitude as long as they did revenge. 
Five or six houses were burned, as well as the mills on the lower 

Peter Coffin's garrison house was captured and pillaged. 
Finding a bag of money the Indians compelled him to scatter 
it by handfuls on the floor, while they scrambled for it. His 
son, who had refused to admit the squaws the night before, was 
persuaded to surrender by their threats to kill his father. Both 
families were put into a deserted house, reserved as prisoners. 
In the confusion, while the Indians were plundering, the pris- 
oners made their escape. 

The garrison of Capt. John Gerrish, son-in-law of Major 
Waldern, seems to have been at some distance at Bellamy 
falls, but his daughter, Sarah Gerrish, aged seven years, lodged 
that night with the Waldern family and was captured and taken 
to Canada after much suffering. She was sent to a nunnery for 
education, but after some years returned to her parents and 
died at the age of sixteen. 

There is no evidence that the house of Thomas Paine, 


burned at this time, was a garrison. The family probably es- 
caped, as shown by his will, made in New Castle, in 1694. 

The journal of the Rev. John Pike, who was minister at 
Dover at that time and must have been well acquainted with 
the facts, says that twenty-three persons were killed, principal 
of whom were Major Waldern, Abraham Lee, Mr. Evans, 
Richard Otis, Joseph Dug (probably Douglass), Joseph Duncan, 
Daniel Lunt, Joseph Sanders, Stephen Otis, Joseph Buss, Wil- 
liam Buss, William Arin, William Horn, and old widow Hanson. 
Twenty-nine were carried away captive, among whom were 
Joseph Chase, Mrs. Abraham Lee, Tobias Hanson's wife, Otis's 
wife and Sarah Gerrish. John Church was captured and es- 
caped. The town records of Dover make no mention of this 
event nor of any town business for the next four years, — the 
silence of desolation. 

Some Indians had warned Major Hinchman of Chelmsford 
of the designed attack upon Cochecho. He communicated the 
information to Secretary Addington, who wrote immediately to 
Major Waldern from Boston, but the messenger was delayed 
at Newbury ferry and so arrived a few hours too late. 

Captain Noyes led a pursuing party to Penacook, where he 
destroyed some corn but found no Indians ; Capt. John Wincol 
marched his soldiers to lake Winnipiseogee, where one or two 
Indians were cut down, as well as the corn. Thus the Indian 
rogues crept upon the settlements stealthily, made their attacks 
usually in the night, surprised the inhabitants, burned, pillaged 
and killed, and then ran away with their captives to Quebec, 
where the French gave them rewards for scalps and captive 
women and children. 

A few days after the massacre at Cochecho about twenty 
Indians were seen sculking at Oyster River, and some houses 
were burned. Philip Crommett was dispatched to Hampton 
to obtain assistance from Capt. Samuel Sherburne. There was 
no further report of mischief done at Oyster River till the fol- 
lowing August, when about sixty Indians, who had been con- 
cealed in the woods several days and watched the opportunity, 
attacked the house of Lieutenant James Huckins, poorly fortified. 
All the men were gathering corn, and soldiers under Captain 
Gardner had lodged at Huckins' house the night before and that 


morning had marched away to Cochecho. All the men in the 
field were slain, including Lieut. James Huckins, whose garrison 
stood a few rods south of the house lately occupied by Deacon 
Winthrop S. Meserve, about a mile from Durham village. The 
field in which the men were slain lies southeast of the garrison, 
beyond Huckins' brook. Eighteen persons were either killed 
or captured. The house was defended for some time by women 
and two boys. After the Indians promised to spare their lives 
and the roof was on fire the boys surrendered ; yet the Indians 
killed three or four of the children and carried away the rest 
of the inmates, except Robert Huckins, who escaped the next 
day. Belknap says that the Indians set one of the children 
upon a sharp stake, in the view of its distressed mother. Lieut. 
Huckins' widow was recovered after a year of captivity at an 
Indian fort in what is now Auburn, Maine, half a mile or so 
below the falls. 

On the eighteenth of May, 1690, two hundred and fifty 
French and Indians, commanded by a French officer, Hertel, 
and the noted Indian chief, Hope Hood, made an attack upon 
Salmon Falls and Berwick. The attack began before sunrise 
when most of the people were in bed. No watch had been kept, 
either in fort or house. The fort and upwards of twenty houses 
were burned. Between eighty and one hundred persons were 
killed or taken, of whom twenty or thirty were men fit for 
military service. The Indians being pursued by forces hastily 
gathered made a stand at Wooster's River, where an indecisive 
fight occurred and several were slain. Another expedition of 
the French and Indians against the fort and settlement at 
Casco, Maine, and still another against Schenectady, New York, 
were equally "successful," from the enemy's point of view. 
Always the settlers were surprised. They felt so secure that 
no watch was kept. Repeated massacres could not teach them 
caution for more than a brief time. 

The Rev. Cotton Mather, in his Magnalia, seemingly on the 
authority of a letter written by William Vaughan of Ports- 
mouth, relates an attack made by Indians at Fox Point, where 
several houses were burned, six persons were taken captive, and 
a dozen more were killed, the Indians being led by Hope Hood. 
The late Charles W. Tuttle published weighty reasons for discred- 
iting this report. The traditions of Fox Point and Bloody Point, 


in Newington, say nothing about this massacre. Probate records, 
town records, Pike's Journal and church records say nothing about 
the slain and the captured. Vaughan's letter says that Capt. John 
Woodman of Oyster River was "forced to break up" his garrison, 
thus allowing the enemy to "come down that way" and to cross 
over to Fox Point in canoes, all of which is absurd to one who 
knows that region minutely. Did the Indians find canoes at the 
lower falls of Oyster River, near to Woodman's garrison? The 
garrison of Capt. John Woodman was never abandoned nor 
taken. The story of a massacre at Fox Point may be classed 
with another story related by Miss Mary P. Thompson, that 
seven daughters of William Durgin were taken from the north 
shore of Great Bay over to Furber's Point and there barbarously 
crucified, — a thing impossible to believe, especially since there 
is no evidence that William Durgin had any daughters at all. 
The people were everywhere in terror. Fears excited imagina- 
tion. Rumor magnified hasty reports. Tradition multiplied 
assertions and handed them down as facts.- 

Hope Hood is said to have been wounded in the fight at 
Fox Point and soon afterward to have been killed by some 
Canada Indians, who mistook him for one of the Iroquois, w^ith 
whom they were at war. Local tradition declares that he died 
and was buried at Hope Hood Point in Dover. 

Pike's Journal records that on the fourth day of July, 1690, 
seven persons were slain and a lad taken at Lamprey River, in 
the vicinity of the present village of Newmarket. The next day 
Hilton's garrison, in the present town of Newfields, was attacked, 
and Lieut. Bancroft in endeavoring to relieve it lost eight or 
nine of his men. On the sixth of July occurred the battle of 
Wheelwright's Pond, in what is now the town of Lee. Capt. 
Floyd was forced to retire with the loss of sixteen men, seven 
of whom, wounded, were picked up the following day by Capt. 
Converse and brought to the hospital. In this battle, which was 
a running fight, one hundred men were engaged, under command 
of Capt. Noah Wiswall and Capt. John Floyd, who led their 
men from Dover and began the fight at Newtown, near Turtle 
Pond. All the militiamen of Oyster River joined in the fight. 

2 Tuttle's Historical Papers, pp. 161-171; Miss Thompson's Landmarks 
in Ancient Dover. 


James Smith, who lived at the Falls, made such haste that he 
died of a surfeit. Thomas Footman was impressed as a soldier 
and was laid up in the hospital at Portsmouth seven months as 
the result of wounds received. Captain Wiswall, Lieutenant 
Flag, Sergeant Walker and twelve privates were killed. Within 
a week from this time forty persons were slain between Lamprey- 
river and Amesbury.^ 

In the summer of 1691 a large force under four captains was 
sent against the Indians at Maquoit, about three miles south of 
the present village of Brunswick, Maine, then known as Pejep- 
scot. Finding no enemy they were reembarking when the 
Indians fell upon them from ambush, and Captain Samuel Sher- 
burne, inn-keeper at Hampton, was slain on the fourth of 
August. He was one of the prominent men of that town, thrice 
selectman and once deputy to the General Court. On the last 
Tuesday of September from twenty to forty Indians came m 
canoes from the eastward and landed at Sandy Beach, now in 
the town of Rye, a little after noon. They avoided the garrison 
and fell upon defenceless families, killing and making captive 
twenty of the old men, women and children. The Brackett 
and Rand families were especially afflicted. The Indians were 
seen carrying canoes on their heads. Next morning companies 
of soldiers from Hampton and Portsmouth came to the place 
and found only smoking ruins, the bodies of thirteen slain and 
the tracks of women and children who had been carried away. 

At this time New Hampshire was without a government, 
and delegates met in Portsmouth to devise some method of com- 
mon defence. Scouts were sent out to range the woods, going 
in small parties from one frontier post to another. A young man 
was fired upon near Cochecho, in the woods. Lieutenant Wilson 
went out with eighteen men, came upon the Indians unawares 
and killed or wounded the whole party, save one. After this 
there was little fighting in New Hampshire for the space of 
more than two years, though the Indians continued to commit 
depredations in Maine, especially attacking Storer's garrison in 
Wells. Meanwhile a conference had been held with the Indians 
at Sagadahock. They brought in ten captives and agreed to a 
truce, till the first day of May. Hostilities began again in June. 

3 Belknap's Hist, of N. H.. p. 134. 


Thus the war wore on, bands of Indians making raids all along 
the Maine and New Hampshire frontiers at unexpected times 
and places. 

In the evening of the second day of September, 1691, the 
Indians fell upon a settlement at Salmon Brook, in the old town 
of Dunstable, nothwithstanding fifty scouts were ranging the 
woods. The town records inform us that the slain were Ben- 
jamin Hassell Senior, Anna Hassell his wife, Benjamin Hassell 
their son, and Mary daughter of Patrick Marks. On the morn- 
ing of the twenty-eighth of September, in the same year, Oba- 
diah Perry and Christopher Perry of Dunstable were killed. 
So much were the inhabitants terrified that two-thirds of them 
fled the town and in 1699 there were left only twenty heads of 

On the eleventh of August, 1693, ^he Indians of the east 
made a solemn agreement with the agents of Sir William Phips, 
governor of Massachusetts, to abstain from all hostilities against 
the English. The treaty was made in the fort at Pemaquid. 
They agreed to abandon the French and to be subject to the 
crown of England, to restore all captives and live in perpetual 
peace with the settlers. Four Indians were delivered as hostages. 
Sixteen Indian chiefs signed the agreement, among whom were 
Bomazeen and Doney, who within a year led in the attack upon 
Oyster River, On account of some disagreement of Sir William 
Phips with the president and council at Portsmouth about the 
seizure of a ship, Phips drew off the soldiers that Massachusetts 
had stationed in the province of New Hampshire. There was 
also difficulty and delay about raising the money to pay their 
expenses. New Hampshire seems to have been too much 
inclined to rely upon other provinces for protection, and the 
council once advised the governor to call upon Connecticut for 
aid. Yet it should be said to the honor of New Hampshire, that 
amid fearful massacres and continual alarms, while the eastern 
parts of Maine were abandoned as far as the town of Wells, 
no part of the four towns of New Hampshire was forsaken by 
settlers. After every burning they built again and stronger and 
better than before, determined to hold on to their lands, in 
spite of foes at court or in ambush. 

* Hill's Old Dunstable, p. 11. 


The only injury done by the Indians in the year 1693 was 
on the tenth of May, when, as Pike relates, Tobias Hanson of 
Dover was killed, "as he travelled the path near the west corner 
of Thomas Downs' field." 

It has been asserted that the Indians toward the east were 
incited by the French emissaries to break the peace agreed upon 
in the treaty of Pemaquid. In an address of the general assem- 
bly of New Hampshire to the king, about the year 1700, they 
refer to "the late war with the barbarous and treacherous enemy, 
the eastern Indians, whose bloody nature and perfidy have been 
much aggravated and improved of late years by Popish Emmis- 
saries from ffrance who have taught 'em that breaking faith with 
and murdering us is the sure way to gain paradise, and so far 
have deluded their Indian Disciples with their Inchantments and 
evil Superstitions that they are taught to spare neither age nor 
sex, having killed and scalped all (except a very few) both old 
and young that came within their power during the whole 
course of the war, and we know not how long these bloody 
Indians will forbear their hostilities. The ffrench Missionaries 
continuing among them as they do and poysoning them with 
their Hellish doctrines to the withdrawing them from their 
former Obedience and subjection to your Majesty."^ 

These assertions as to the conduct of the French mission- 
aries should be well scrutinized before being accepted at face 
value. The oppositions between Protestants and Roman Cath- 
olics were then so bitter and deep that each party was accused 
of wrongs. In every war there have been atrocities on both 
sides, and they are not to be laid at the door of religion, true 
or false. The lowest passions are aroused and delight in cruelty, 
under the plea of necessary retaliation. Religious principle may 
restrain the educated few; superstition may deaden the con- 
sciences of the ignorant many. The Indians were out for 
revenge and plunder, and the results were not so terrible as are 
those of recent wars of nominally Christian nations. No air- 
ships sailed about, dropping bombs ruthlessly upon the homes 
of defenceless women and children, while ministers were be- 
seeching God for the protection and success of the armies that 
perpetrated such outrages. In time of war there has been very 

5 Manuscript at Concord, N. H., copied from English Archives, No. looi. 


little difference between Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and 
heathenism. All alike are freed from the restraints of peaceful 

The French and Indians seem to have had little regard for 
solemn treaties of peace. That of Pemaquid was suddenly 
broken by the attack on the inhabitants of Oyster River, July 
i8, 1694, said by captives to have been talked of in the streets 
of Quebec two months before. The commander of the French 
at Penobscot was Monsieur de Villieu, who had defended Quebec 
against the expedition of Sir William Phips. He collected an 
army of about two hundred and fifty from the eastern tribes, 
who were accompanied by at least two French priests. There 
were warnings that led some to be apprenhensive of danger. 
Knocks were heard by night at certain doors, and stones were 
thrown at garrisons, to find out whether the houses and gar- 
risons were defended and whether any watch were kept. Even 
this did not put the inhabitants on their guard. The plan of 
the enemy was to burn every house on both sides of Oyster 
river and along the north shore of Great Bay. Small bands of 
Indians were to make simultaneous attacks, but the plan was 
somewhat defeated by the premature shooting of John Dean, 
at the lower Falls, now Durham village. The Indians who had 
been concealed in the woods made their attack here before dawn, 
and Dean was going to the pasture to catch his horse, intending 
to leave home early in the morning. Some impatient Indian 
fired upon him and killed him. The report of the gun alarmed 
some households, and the word of warning was spread as far 
and as rapidly as possible. The undefended fled to the nearest 
garrisons and some were slain in their flight. Mrs. Dean and 
her daughters were captured and taken to a spruce swamp and 
left in the care of an old Indian who had a violent headache. 
He proved to be the sagamore Doney. He asked Mrs. Dean 
for a remedy for headache, and she replied "occapee," the Indian 
word for rum. He became intoxicated, and his captives made 
their escape, hiding in a thicket during the day and going down 
the river in a canoe by night to Burnham's garrison, where 
they found protection. 

The next house attacked was that of Ensign John Davis, 
who lived half a mile below the Falls. He surrendered on the 
promise of safety, yet he, his wife and several children were 


killed and his house was burned. Two daughters were made 
captive and carried to Canada, where one, Mary Ann, became 
a sister of Saint Benedict of the Ursuline Convent. The other, 
Sarah, returned and married Peter Mason. 

The garrison of Jeremiah Burnham was on the hilltop where 
Ambrose Gibbons had built his house over fifty years before. 
Hither fled Moses Davis and gave the alarm. John Willey also 
spent the night at this garrison and had been kept awake by 
toothache, thus hearing the first shot. Ten Indians had been 
sent to surprise this garrison, but they fell asleep on the bank 
of the river. Shouts aroused the family of Ezekiel Pitman, who 
lived only a gunshot's distance from Burnham's. They escaped 
through one end of the house while the Indians were entering 
the other, and protected by the shade of trees found their way 
to the Burnham garrison, on which no serious attack was made, 
the place being well situated for defence and the occupants now 
ready for action. 

The house of Stephen Jenkins was attacked by Bomazeen 
and ten Indians more. The family fled into the corn field, where 
Mr. Jenkins was shot, tomahawked and scalped by Bomazeen 
himself, the same sachem that had signed the treaty of peace at 
Pemaquid and who in 1724 was killed in war at Taconnet Falls, 
near what is now Winslow, Maine, while trying to escape by 
swimming. Mrs. Ann Jenkins was carried captive to Penacook 
and thence to Norridgewock, but returned to give testimony 
against Bomazeen in his trial at Boston after he had been taken 
at Pemaquid. She said that Bomazeen knocked one of her 
children on the head, scalped her and then put her in the arms 
of her dying father and stabbed the breast. He also killed and 
scalped the grandmother of Mr. Jenkins. Three children went 
into captivity with their mother. Bomazeen's wife was espe- 
cially cruel to her and beat her seven times, intending thus to 
put an end to her life, but she was kindly bought and rescued 
by an Indian minister called prince Waxaway, who also bought 
three more captives and rescued them, so that it appears that 
the influence of the Jesuit missionaries upon Indian character 
produced some good results. 

The next house to that of Stephen Jenkins was the parson- 
age of the Rev. John Buss, who was away from home. The 
house was plundered and burned, while the church near by, 


built in 1656, was left uninjured. The family of Mr. Buss 
escaped by hiding among the trees. Tradition says that the 
French priests made some chalk-marks on the pulpit of parson 
Buss, some words of holy writ perhaps, as has been conjectured 
and as we are privileged to hope. The house of Bartholomew 
Stevenson was burned, and probably his two brothers, Thomas 
and Joseph, were slain. 

Thomas and Francis Drew were killed, and the Drew gar- 
rison was destroyed. Francis Drew's wife was taken and was 
so enfeebled by hunger that she was left to die in the woods. 
His oldest son, Thomas, and his young wife were taken, he 
being carried to Canada and she to Norridgewock, whence she 
returned after four years, rejoined her liberated husband and 
became the mother of fourteen children. She was dragged out 
of a window of her house by the chief, Bomazeen. She was 
delivered of a child in the winter, in the open air, in a violent 
snow storm. The Indians killed it, since she was unable to 
provide it with food. She lived fourteen days on a decoction 
of the bark of trees. There were fifteen in the Drew family. 
John Drew escaped from a window, to be slain by Indians a 
few years later. Benjamin Drew, only nine years of age, was 
carried over lake Winnepiseogee and there made to run the 
gauntlet till he was cut down with tomahawks. 

The garrison of Charles Adams, at Oyster River Point, was 
burned and all its inmates perished, to the number of fifteen. 
One pregnant wife was ripped up, and her child was found 
scorched. All were buried in a mound that still tells its sad 

Thomas Bickford defended his garrison at the extreme Point 
by a ruse, having sent his family in a canoe over to the opposite 
shore. He had several guns and appeared from time to time in 
dii?^erent costume and issued his military orders, so that the 
Indians were deceived into the belief that the garrison was well 
manned. Three daughters of the Willey family, next to Bick- 
ford's, were captives in Canada five years later. 

The garrison of Thomas Edgerly was burned and some 
children were killed. He, his wife, and her sister escaped by 
hiding in the cellar. Thomas Edgerly Senior, who had been a 
judge, barely escaped, while his son was wounded, and some 
daughters were captured. John Rand and wife Remembrance 


were probably killed and some of the family were carried away. 
Joseph Kent hid himself in a drain and lay there all day, while 
the Indians were drawn off by firing elsewhere, thus giving his 
wife and children opportunity to escape. William Graves was 
wounded, Peter Denbow was made captive, and the inhabitants 
of Lubberland, along the north shore of Great Bay, were forced 
to flee in boats to the other side. Not much damage was done 
at Lubberland. There is no account of any attack upon the 
Mathes garrison at the Point. 

Another band of Indians were doing their deadly work on 
the north side of Oyster river. The barking of a dog woke 
Ensign Stephen Jones, who just escaped the bullet that a con- 
cealed Indian fired at him, as he was sitting on the top of a 
flanker of his garrison. Hester Chesley, who married John Hall, 
leaped from a window with a babe in her arms and found refuge 
at the Jones garrison. Others were not so fortunate and were 
cut down in their flight, among them being Robert Watson, 
whose wife was later redeemed from captivity and married 
Deacon John Ambler. Her son also was captured. Twenty 
pounds was the price of her ransom. The wife of Edward 
Leathers and some of her children were killed, as well as a 
woman named Jackson. Mrs. Judith (Davis) Emerson was 
taken and held in captivity several years. Her aged mother hid 
in a field of corn, but was discovered and slain. The aged 
Robert Huckins, who had escaped the massacre of 1689, was 
killed at this time. 

Further down the river the garrisons of Bunker, Smith, and 
Lieutenant James Davis were successfully defended, doubtless 
being warned by the sight of other burning houses. Lieutenant 
Davis was fired upon by three Indians, and he shot one whose 
bones were found in a swamp soon after. The Header garrison 
was abandoned and burned, the family escaping by boat. 

In the northern part of the plantation the house of John 
Derry was burned, some of his children were killed, and he with 
his wife and one son was taken into captivity, where he soon 
died. William Tasker, who lived near by was wakened by an 
Indian asking at his window if it was not time for him to get 
up. The reply was a shot that mortally wounded the Indian. 
The family escaped to Woodman's garrison, which was assailed 
by the united bands of Indians after their bloody raids on both 


sides of the river. The garrison held out, and after the priests 
had said mass within sight of it, on a ledge of rock, they went 
away with their plunder and captives. To sum up what has 
been written, sixteen houses and garrisons were burned, forty- 
nine or more were slain, and nearly fifty were taken captive. Yet 
the surviving inhabitants did not run away. Soldiers from 
Hampton came to their relief, and most of the families soon re- 
built their houses. Here and there a lonely cellar may be found, 
concealed amid trees and bushes, where a garrison stood before 
1694, and a mound of earth with some unlettered, oblong, 
granite stones tells where some of the slain were buried. 

After the massacre at Oyster River the party of Indians 
divided, some going to Groton to ravage that town, and the 
rest crossing the Pascataqua and surprising Ursula, widow of 
President Cutt, with three men, as they were making hay in the 
field. She lived about two miles above Portsmouth. All were 
killed and scalped. Colonel Richard Waldron and wife were 
about to take boat to dine with her when they were prevented 
by the arrival of friends, and while they were at dinner news 
was received of Mrs. Cutt's death. 

Two men were killed at Exeter in July, 1695, and no further 
depredations are on record for that year. The following year, 
on the seventh of May, John Church of Cochecho, who had been 
captured and had escaped in the massacre of 1689, was killed 
and scalped "as he traveled to seek his horse, up a little hill, 
betwixt Cochecho and Tole-end," and on the twenty-seventh of 
August David Davis was killed at Lubberland, in the parish of 
Oyster River. There are no particulars of these sad events. 
On the twenty-sixth of June the Indians fell upon the settle- 
ment at Sagamore Creek and Sherburne's plain, about two miles 
from Portsmouth village. They came from York to Sandy 
Beach in canoes. The following is the fullest account that has 
been preserved of this attack, by one who had unusual oppor- 
tunity to learn the details, "The Indians secreted themselves 
among the bushes the night preceding. They were at their 
stations before daylight, and early in the morning made an as- 
sault on five houses at the same time. The people ran out as 
soon as the alarm was given, and the Indians killed fourteen per- 
sons ; one, whom they supposed was dead, and had scalped, 
afterwards recovered. They took four prisoners, and having 


plundered the houses they set them on fire and retreated through 
a great swamp about four or five miles, where they stopped on 
the declivity of a hill to prepare some breakfast; which has 
ever since retained the name of Breakfast Hill. A company of 
militia, under the command of Captain Shackford and Lieuten- 
ant Libbey, immediately pursued and overtook them in this 
situation. The Indians had placed their captives above them 
on the hill to receive the fire in case they should be attacked. 
The militia rushed upon them, rescued the prisoners and the 
plunder, but the enemy escaped by concealing themselves in 
the swamp till night, when they took possession of their canoes. 
A party was sent out in boats, which were arranged in a line 
to intercept them in their passage to the eastward ; the captain 
being too sanguine, gave orders to fire before the enemy were 
within reach of their guns, upon which they altered their course 
and escaped by going round the Isle of Shoals."^ 

In Brewster's Rambles About Portsmouth a list of the 
killed and wounded in this massacre at the Plains is given. The 
killed were Thomas Onion aged 74, Joseph Holmes aged 20, 
Hixon Foss 17, Peter Moe 40, James Jaffrey's child 4, John 
Jones 32, William Howard 30, Richard Parshley 25, Samuel 
Foss Jr. 16, Betsey Babb 14, Nancy White 8, William Gate Jr. 
16, and Dinah the slave of John Brewster. The wounded were 
Peggy Jones aged 76, William Gate's three children, Daniel 
Jackson aged 41, and Mary Brewster, who was scalped and 
left for dead, yet lived to be the mother of four sons. 

On the same day the people at Gochecho were waylaid and 
fired upon as they were returning from meeting. The persons 
killed were Nicholas Otis, Mary Downs and Mary Jones. The 
wounded were Richard Otis, Anthony Lowden and Experience 
Heard. Those captured were John Tucker, Nicholas Otis Jr., 
and Judith Ricker. These named were recorded by the minister, 
the Rev. John Pike. The following year administration on the 
estate of Samuel Heard was granted to his widow. Experience 

On the twenty-seventh of August, 1696, Lieut. John Locke 
was surprised and killed in his field, at Jocelyn's Neck, in Hamp- 

6 Adams' Annals of Portsmouth, p. 102-3. 


ton, and soon after Arnold Breck was shot at between Hampton 
and Greenland. 

While the province of Maine and the town of Haverhill, 
Massachusetts, suffered severely during the year 1697, the only 
one killed in New Hampshire, of which there is record, was 
Thomas Chesley Senior, of Oyster River, who was slain near 
Johnson's Creek, on the fifteenth of November. At the same 
time William Jackson was captured and soon made his escape. 
It was during the assault on Haverhill that Hannah Dustin was 
taken and conveyed to a small island at the mouth of the Con- 
toocook river, about six miles above the city of Concord. The 
story of how, with the assistance of another woman and a youth, 
she rose in the night and tomahawked and scalped her captors, 
returning to her home, is well known. A monument to com- 
memorate the daring deed has been erected on the island and 
another may be seen in Dustin Square, Haverhill, and the site 
of the Dustin residence is now a public park, with an immense 
commemorative boulder thereon. 

After the peace of Ryswick, 1698, Count Frontenac advised 
the eastern Indians to make peace with the English, which 
accordingly was done at Casco on the ninth of January, 1699. 
Some captives were then restored to their friends, and the re- 
turning of others was promised in the spring, but many of 
the younger captives remained in Canada, having married there. 
A public thanksgiving was ordered by the governor and council 
of New Hampshire, December 13, 1698. Among other causes 
of gratitude to God was mentioned the fact of His "so long re- 
straining the Heathen Enemie from making their barbarous 
incursions upon us," which shows how quickly people can for- 
get their calamities. During the previous "Decade of Grief" 
sixty distinct attacks had been made on New England settle- 
ments by the French and Indians, as enumerated by Mr. Farmer. 
Five hundred and seventy-one had been slain. He reports only 
eighty-two wounded during this time. This may be because 
the Indians were in the habit of leaving but few wounded, since 
the scalps of dead men were profitable. One hundred and 
sixty-two prisoners are reported, though this must have been 
only a small part of those who were carried to Canada and to 
Norridgewock. Many of those taken to Canada were baptized 
into the faith of the Roman Catholic Church, and very few of 

A HISTORY , 189 

such ever returned to the Protestant faith. Some were content 
to spend their lives in nunneries. Others w^ere ransomed after 
years of captivity, and some who were anxiously sought could 
not be found. As for the Indian tribes their loses were not 
heavy. They always came by night, killed, plundered and ran 
away to attack some distant place in like manner. Continual 
warfare, however, for ten years wasted their possessions, and 
they were eager to accept the advice of the French, after France 
had made peace with England, and submit themselves, in the 
words of a treaty at least, to the British government. But wars 
stir up hatreds that last long and flame out on slight provoca- 
tion. History has shown that the nations of Europe must be 
at peace, or else their colonies are drawn into the quarrels of 
the old world. Hence the story of the Indian wars in New 
England must be long drawn out in later chapters, although it 
is far from being "linked sweetness." 

chapter IX 


chapter IX 


John Usher — Removal and Mutilation of Records — No Salary for Governors 
— William Partridge as Lieutenant Governor — Charles Story Secretary — 
Shadrach Walton Commander of the Fort — Report of Usher to the 
Lords of Trade — Richard Coote, Earl of Bellomont — A Diplomatic 
Letter — Governor Samuel Allen — Reception of Bellomont — His First 
Impressions — Scheme to Employ Mohawks as Allies — The Earl Changes 
His Mind — Contempt for Mechanics in Office — Would Prohibit Expor- 
tation of Lumber and Turn New Hampshire Settlers into Fishermen — 
Matrimonial Alliances Proposed by Allen — Bellomont's Opinion of New 
Hampshire Lawyers — No Laws Binding on People not Represented in 
Parliament — Partridge a Mere Figure-head — Repair of Fort William and 
Mary — Obstinate Juries — Evasions of Law — Joseph Dudley Appointed 
Governor — Letter of George Jaffrey — No Special Verdict — Waste Lands 
Conceded to Allen — New Commission of John Usher as Lieutenant 
Governor — Convention of Landholders — Their Proposal — Death of 
Samuel Allen — New Castle Incorporated — Kingston. 

JOHN USHER arrived and published his commission as Lieu- 
tenant Governor, August 13, 1692. He had been a wealthy 
stationer in Boston and continued to reside there and carry on 
his business, visiting the province from time to time. He had 
little sympathy with the people of New Hampshire in their 
contention with Samuel Allen for the possession of their estates. 
It was known that he had been a member of the council of the 
hated Andros and that he was an owner in the million acre 
purchase. His letters to officials in London indicate that he 
soon caught the spirit and views of his predecessors in office 
and looked upon the political leaders in New Hampshire as 
disloyal and rebellious. He seems to have had an undue sense 
of the dignity and importance of his office, as is the manner of 
many "dressed in a little brief authority." He was a man of 
business, intent on gains, rather than a statesman and courtier. 
His letters have neither learning nor literary polish, and his 
speech is said to have been loud, stern and domineering. If 
his hand was not of iron, it was at least ungloved. Doubtless 
the oppositions he met tended to make him more imperious and 



to assert his independence of subordinates. Those who crossed 
his pathway were treated with severity, and some of the obstin- 
ate ones of Portsmouth were shown the way to prison. Yet 
he cared for the interests of the province, so far as they did 
not conflict with the claims of Samuel Allen. In the time of 
Indian raids he advanced money from his own pocket for pay- 
ment of military expenses in the defence of the frontiers. He 
wanted to be a real governor and put into effect the decisions of 
the royal council ; the people wanted only a nominal governor, 
who would allow them practical independence and especially 
leave them undisturbed in the possession of their lands. Hence 
he encountered the same difificulties as Cranfield. 

While Richard Chamberlain was secretary of the province 
and clerk of the council, the records had been taken forcibly 
from him by Capt. John Pickering and carried to Kittery, where 
they are said to have been kept in the garrison house of Major 
Joseph Ham^mond, at a place now known as Greenacre, in 
Eliot. Usher had difficulty in recovering the records. Pickering 
said that they had been committed to him by the people and 
would be restored only by a vote of the assembly. It was found 
in 1702 that the records had been mutilated, twenty-four leaves 
having been cut out, which contained the decisions of court 
against the landowners in the times of Cranfield and Barefoot. 
Whether this unjust mutilation of public records was the work 
of John Pickering or of William Vaughan does not appear, yet 
suspicion falls on one or the other, as they had the opportunity, 
Vaughan having the custody of the records from 1697 to 1702. 
John Pickering probably will be held accountable, who after 
being threatened and imprisoned delivered the records to the 
new Secretary, Henry Penny. It was asserted, seventy-five 
years later, by Theodore Atkinson, then secretary of the province, 
that "widows and orphans and other innocent persons suffered 
by not being able to secure their titles to property. "i 

In the organization of Usher's council there was a hitch 
in the proceedings because some were unwilling to take oath of 
office with hand upon the Bible, according to custom in England, 
and insisted upon being sworn with the uplifted hand. The 
objectors were Major Elias Stileman, Samuel Keais and Job 

1 Sanborn's New Hampshire, p. 163. 


Clements. The council voted to allow them the liberty formerly 
granted in the province, though John Hinckes objected and 
refused to administer the oath in this manner. 

The old question of raising money troubled the new gov- 
ernor. The assembly would vote nothing for the support of 
government, pleading poverty occasioned by the Indian war. 
They asked him to appeal to the king for aid, and finally voted a 
duty on articles of export, "provided he and the council would 
join with them in petitioning the king to annex them to Mas- 
sachusetts." Such a petition is not on record. The province 
was always very poor in the estimation of the assembly when- 
ever they were asked to assess a tax for what they did not 
approve. Mr. Usher alludes to this propensity in a letter to the 
Lords of Trade and Plantations, dated July i, 1694, in which he 
tells of the suspension of John Hinckes as a member of the 
council and of the imprisonment of William Partridge, treasurer 
of the province. He adds, "If ever there was any Sore Tryall 
to manage a government by virtue of the King's Commission, 
am sure none like to the province of Hampshire. Tho' butt a 
few people, yett being overawed by 2 or 3 persons, doe what in 
them Lyes to affront & oppose the King's Commission.. . .Time 
was when they could govern among themselves without Com- 
mission, the Strings of their Majestys Subjects purse could be 
stretched to pay for their Irregularities, tho' poorer than now, 
butt now let the King appoint a Governor, tho' they doe not 
kill him outright, yett will starve him to death before they 
will contribute one penney to his subsistence."- Later he wrote 
that he had been in New Hampshire five years at a cost to him- 
self of five hundred pounds and had never received one penny 
from the province, and that he had paid out of his own purse 
four hundred pounds for the relief of those who had suffered 
from the depredations of the Indians and for their defense ; 
that the people of New Hampshire were not poor but sullen ; 
that they wanted everything for nothing ; that they asked Massa- 
chusetts to send men for their defense and to pay the bills of 
the same ; that to his own knowledge there were persons in 
Portsmouth who had one hundred pounds per annum and were 
rated at only twenty pounds, when if the same estate was in 

2 Ms. at Concord No. 697. 


Boston it would be rated at forty pounds, "and yet they plead 
poverty, but the truth is that it's not poverty but only the 
King will have it a distinct government immediately under him- 
self, but the people will not have it soe ; so much for loyalty." 

Again Mr. Usher wrote to the Lords of Trade and Planta- 
tion, September 30, 1696, that his estate had been wasted for 
support of the honor of the government, "my sperritt even sunk 
within me, to have to do with a disloyall people That is for noe 
King att all, de facto, and none to strengthen my hands, and 
to see the King like to lose a government, wherein he is most 
immediately concerned in these parts, that 1 am brought to 
Lord have mercy upon me, desiring that after four years Algier 
Captivity have a deliverance."^ 

He said it was difficult to find men who would be faithful 
to the king. He dismissed Nathaniel Weare from being judge 
and put Joseph Smith in his place. He suspended John Hinckes, 
William Vaughan and Colonel Richard Waldron as members 
of the council, yet these with divers others reseated themselves, 
seized the government, dismissed several persons from office 
and commissioned others "without any legal authority," as 
Usher writes. Hence he protests against such proceedings and 
names Capt. Nathaniel Fryer, president, and Peter Coffin, Rob- 
ert Elliot, Henry Green, Nathaniel Weare, Joseph Smith, Kings- 
ley Hall as councilors. This protest was dated February 8, 

Mr. Usher was disappointed in not receiving the two 
hundred and fifty pounds that had been promised to him by 
Samuel Allen, in whose stead he was trying to govern New 
Hampshire, and to whose interests he had been faithful. Tired 
out and discouraged he desired Allen to come over and take 
the reins of government in his own hands and try to drive 
unbroken steeds, or to send over a successor to act as lieutenant 
governor. He was not aware that a petition to that effect had 
already been sent to the king, and that William Partridge, a 
native of Portsmouth, had been recommended to LTsher's office. 
He was a wealthy shipwright, treasurer of the province, and 
well known among merchants in England, having supplied the 

3 Ms. at Concord No. 753. 

4 Ms. at Concord No. 772. 


navy with masts and timber. Mr. Partridge made a voyage to 
England and returned with a commision appointing himself 
as lieutenant governor. This commision was not formally and 
legally published, although the people knew what had taken 
place. The reason why he did not publish it at once may 
appear later in certain correspondence. John Hinckes as presi- 
dent of the council assumed to act as lieutenant governor before 
Partridge's commission was proclaimed, and John Pickering was 
made king's attorney. Thus New Hampshire, represented by a 
small group of men in Portsmouth, had self-government, almost 
independency, for a short time, while Usher was disputing with 
Partridge as to who was lieutenant governor. Partridge's com- 
mission was dated June 6, 1696, and was obtained by the aid 
of Sir Henry Ashurst, whose attitude toward the contestants 
is shown in a letter to the Lords of Trade and Plantations, 
dated June 22, 1697. "By uninterrupted information for nine 
years last past I have been assured that Mr. Waldron and Mr. 
Vaughan are persons of the greatest interest in New Hampshire, 
of good affection to the government, of great wisdome and integ- 
rity, that however they may be represented to your Lordships 
you will find them unworthy of Censure when they have liberty 
to answer for themselves."^ 

Ashurst, April 24, 1700, wrote a letter, asking compensation 
for services, saying "I have in your lowest estate appeared for 
you as your Agent, I have done you considerable service, pro- 
cured you Mr. Partridge, your Leftenant Governor, and was 
told that I should have a gratuity and a salary settled as the 
Agent." The Council voted him fifty pounds sterling, and a little 
later voted that one hundred pounds should be given to the 
Honorable William Partridge "for what he have expended for 
the use of this Province." Thus he had a free trip to London, 
besides his commission as Lieutenant Governor.^ 

The president and council wrote to Sir Henry Ashurst, 
February 16, 1696/7, that Mr. Partridge had arrived but had 
not yet taken oath of his office, and that John Hinckes and 
council were administering government; "that Governor Allen was 
pleased to send a person after Mr. Partridge, who overtooke 

5 MS. at Concord, No. 804. 

6 N. H. Prov. Papers, pp. 125-6, 139. 


him at Plymouth & came over in the same ship with him, by- 
name Charles Storey, recommended to the place of secretary 
& clerk of our councill together with a Commission for Judge 
of the Admiralty within this province." Story was received 
"with all the Countenance, civility & respect he could ration- 
ally expect. But we quickly found him underserving thereof. . , . 
None were his Companions but Redford and Packer, two mal- 
contents of Mr. Usher's party. Mr. Story was ordered by the 
council to deliver up the books but he refused. He was ordered 
into custody, and a warrant was issued to search for the books, 
which were quickly found and brought to the council board, and 
Story was told by the council that they dismissed him as 
secretary and clerk."^ The records were deposited with Major 
William Vaughan, who was appointed recorder, and were after- 
ward kept in that office. Charles Story was dispatched by Lieu- 
tenant Governor Usher to England, with an account of these 
transactions, which Usher styles "the Pascataqua rebellion." 
Story returned and served very acceptably as Secretary of the 
Council till his death, in 1716. While in England he petitioned 
for reimbursement for his expenses, amountmg to fifty-eight 
pounds, as well as for expenses in London and loss of one year's 

In answer to the complaint of Usher, made through Charles 
Story, the lords of trade ordered him to continue to act as lieu- 
tenant governor till Mr. Partridge should qualify himself, or 
till the Earl of Bellomont should arrive. Accordingly he pro- 
ceeded as far as Hampton. Soon after he reported that arms 
had been taken up against the king's government and that he 
had left the province, his life being in danger. At Hampton 
he made a speech in the church, before Mr. Cotton's sermon, 
and ordered out the militia in his own defense. He reports 
that of the two hundred and forty men in Hampton only twenty 
appeared with arms. He read his protest to the twenty and 
left the province. He afterward was informed that Major Wil- 
liam Vaughan and Capt. John Pickering were at the head of 
the militia in Portsmouth and sent forty men to Hampton to 
seize Usher, and that Story and William Redford, deputy secre- 
tary, were in custody. John Hinckes had seized fort William 

"MS. ot Concord, No. tjt. 


and Mary, at New Castle, as Shadrach Walton said in a petition 
to the king, Walton had been commander of the fort four years, 
and three years he had commanded a company in service against 
the Indians, in which campaign he was wounded several times 
and had never received any compensation for his services and 

W^hile Usher was at Hampton the leaders in Portsmouth 
held a consultation by night, and the next day Partridge's com- 
mission was published formally, and he took the oaths pre- 
scribed. Usher reported these proceedings to the Lords of 
Trade and Plantations, December 13, 1697. He says that 
Partridge had neglected for a year to take the oath of his office, 
not qualifying while in England ; that "the day after I had pub- 
lished your orders relating to the government, though not qual- 
ifying himselfe, he entered on the government, contrary to your 
orders, 3d of August, & Hincks gave him an oath. He then 
admitted three suspended persons to be of his Councill, without 
being restored by the King's Signett, or Signe manuall, & putt 
out Joseph Smith and Kingsley Hall, Esquire, members of the 
Councill and both loyall persons, which two persons satt with 
me in Councill the 13th instant, all extremely contrary to the 
Kings Commission.. . .Has made one Penny Secretary, a person 
no ways qualified, being not a freeholder, nor worth five pounds 
in the world.. . .Partridge, being Sincible he could not qualifye 
himselfe before entrance on the Government, had Hincks, 
Vaughan, Waldron, Eliott and Coffin to give their bonds to pay 
part of the one Thousand Pounds Penalty by the account, which 
with submission judge to be a high misdemeanor". .. ."Am in- 
formed Partridge hath with advice of his pretended Councill 
issued out Warrants to call an assembly for raising Money. 
If not qualified judge cannott legally soe doe.". . ."Reason why 
Partridge did not enter sooner on the Government because he 
had two vessells come from Bilboa with some iron, another with 
goods of Production of Europe, from Newfoundland, all 
Breaches of the acts of Trade, arrived this Summer". . ."One 
reason judge why he soe Suddenly entered on ye Government 
because leastt I should make Ceisure of the vessell and part of 
the goods, the which I should have endeavored." Usher goes 
on to say that he had never had one penny for his services of 
seven years and had spent out of his own estate above seven 


hundred pounds, besides expense of time, and claims the one 
thousand pounds penalty forfeited by Mr. Partridge. 

On the other hand the council and assembly reported to 
their Lordships that Mr. Partridge had assumed the office of 
lieutenant governor and they gratefully acknowledged the favor 
in appointing "one of our ow^n inhabitants." They added that 
"Mr. Usher began to give us some disturbance, and, as we 
understand, has complained to your lordships of our being with- 
out a government and in a lamentable condition ; whereas the 
Province never was in a more quiet, peaceable condition ; nor 
has there been any disturbance in it since Mr. Partridge's ar- 
rival ; but only what Mr. Usher has endeavored to give us." 
This was dated February 3, 1697.^ 

On the twenty-fifth of February, 1697, the lords of trade 
recommended to the king the appointment of a governor-general 
of the provinces of Massachusetts, New Hampshire and New 
York, who should also be captain-general of all military forces 
therein and in Connecticut, Rhode Island and the Jerseys, with 
chief residence in New York and liberty to go to Boston and 
return on occasion and in such absence to appoint a deputy. 
Accordingly Richard, Earl of Bellomont, was appointed to this 
office. He was the only son of Richard Coote, styled Lord 
Coloony, and grandson of Sir Charles Coote, who barbarously 
massarcred the inhabitants of Sligo in 1653, setting fire to the 
church whither women and children had fled. The son suc- 
ceeded his father in 1683, served in parliament from 1688, and 
was created Earl of Bellomont in 1689. After his arrival in 
New York, where he remained one year, the council sent to 
him Ichabod Plaisted as their deputy, to present their congrat- 
ulations and respects, allowing him twenty pounds for his jour- 
ney, which was increased to over twenty-six pounds in his bill 
of expenses. His instructions show some knowledge of state- 
craft : 

When you arrive at New York take good advice according to letters 
herewith given you, how to demean yourself : If you find my lord high and 
reserved, not easy of access, you must manage your business by some of 
the gentlemen about him ; If you find him to give you a favorable reception 
and free to discourse, you then may let him know how universally the news 

8 N. H. Prov. Papers, Vol. II, p. 267. 


of his being our Governor did affect us with joy and satisfaction; you must 
also let him know that we daily expect Mr. Allen, whose commission for 
Governor here will be accounted valid until his Excellency's commission be 
here published ; and query how we shall demean ourselves in such a case : 
in short, the principal end in sending you on this message is to pay our 
respects and duty to his lordship and to prevent Mr. Usher or any other 
mal-content prepossessing him with any ill thing against us ; so that if Mr. 
Usher or any such be there, you must observe their carriage and endeavor 
to learn how they are received and treated by my lord ; and forthwith, by 
the first post after your arrival, to give us an account of your affairs.9 

Meanwhile Samuel Allen, proprietor of the province, came 
over and on the fifteenth of September 1698, took the oaths of 
office and assumed command as governor. At the same time 
John Usher, now his son-in-law, appeared and claimed to be a 
member of the council and lieutenant governor, holding that 
Partridge's assumption of the latter office was illegal. Mr. 
Allen allowed him to sit as a member of the council, whereat all 
of the members except Nathaniel Fryer withdrew in spite of 
Allen's command to the contrary. Nathaniel Weare declared 
he would not, by remaining in the council, put contempt on the 
king's commission. His son, Peter Weare, was appointed coun- 
cilor in his place, and Sampson Sheafe now first appears as 
councilor and was made secretary in place of Charles Story. 
Sheafe was also collector of imposts. Joseph Smith and Kings- 
ley Hall also were made councilors. The new Secretary could 
not obtain the province records, for Major Vaughan had ab- 
sconded with them. He had gone to New York and the records 
were again with Major Hammond in Kittery. 

Governor Allen advised the council to send congratulations 
to the Earl of Bellomont and was surprised to learn that this 
had already been done, and that no business of importance 
would be transacted before his arrival. Their last act was to 
vote that the revenues collected should remain unexpended 
till the Earl appeared on the scene. Thus Mr. Allen had only 
the name of governor. The constables he had appointed refused 
to collect the taxes, and he was obliged to reappoint the con- 
stables that he had deposed. Mr. Partridge withdrew from 
the council, but reassumed his office as lieutenant governor as 
soon as the Earl of Bellomont arrived. 

These disturbances led to mutual recriminations. Joseph 

9 N. H. Prov. Papers, Vol. II, p. 264. 


Smith of Hampton wrote to John Usher, Jan. 17, 1698, saying 
that John Pickering, the speaker of the assembly, is "known to 
be of ill principles, being a common Drunkard, if not a notorious 
felon"; and in an address to the Earl of Bellomont, August 11, 
1699, signed by William Partridge, John Hinckes, Peter Coffin, 
Robert Elliot, John Gerrish and Richard Waldron, as councilors, 
they declare that Sampson Sheafe, Shadrach Walton, Joseph 
Smith and Thomas Packer are unfit to hold office, for various 
reasons stated.^^ 

Samuel Allen, doubtless urged on by John Usher, asserted 
his claim to lands purchased of the heirs of Mason, which was 
enough to intensify opposition to all his wishes. In reply to the 
expressed advice of the assembly to "carry on with a more 
moderate conduct" he said, "As for your future proceedings I 
do advise you to act safely. And finding, Gentlemen, your aim 
and drift is to strike at the Kings honor and prerogative, and 
countenancing of such who are violent against the same, I shall 
render an account unto his Majesty of my whole proceedings; 
and in the meanwhile you are dissolved ; and in his Majestys 
name I do dissolve you. The Court is dissolved." And nobody 
doubted the fact. His reiterated statement made it perfectly 
clear.ii At once Robert Elliot was suspended "for several 
mutinous and contemptuous words and carriages." 

In the spring of 1699 the Earl of Bellomont set out for his 
eastern provinces. Elaborate preparations were made to receive 
him in New Hampshire. Twenty-five pounds and ten shillings 
were paid for a boat, oars, awning and carpet for the use of his 
Excellency. Major Joseph Smith, treasurer, was ordered to ad- 
vance one hundred pounds for the reception of his Excellency 
and to make due provision for his entertainment. Later Colonel 
Richard Waldron was paid sixty-nine pounds for entertaining 
the Earl. Immediately on his arrival the council and assembly 
voted to him a present of five hundred pounds, tho too poor to 
grant any salary to Usher. A letter was drawn up and sent 
by special messengers, to be offered to the Earl on his arrival 
at Boston, and John Usher, the asserted lieutenant governor, 
Joseph Smith of Hampton and Captain Shadrach Walton con- 

10 MS. at Concord, Nos. 828, 896. 

11 N. H. Prov. Papers, Vol. II, p. 293. 


veyed it. The tone of this letter must have been quite different 
from the address of the council and assembly to the Earl after 
his arrival, in which they say that "John Usher, Esquire, during 
his exercise of the Government of this province, did manage the 
affairs thereof w^ith so uneven a temper, w^ith so much rashnesse 
and precipitency that it tended very much to the kings disser- 
vice and the Grievance and disquiet of his Majesties good Sub- 
jects, by reason whereof some of the principal inhabitants were 
forced to leave the province, and it has been particularly ob- 
served that sundry of the Gentlemen of the assembly, who dis- 
covered a different opinion from Mr. Usher, were by his order 
immediately upon the dissolution of the assembly taken up and 
sent as private Centinells to keep Garrison in the frontier towns 
and one particularly sent to prison besides sundry other Malad- 
ministrations."^- Of course it was not fitting that men of 
wealth and station, in a time of common peril, should be im- 
pressed as common soldiers and sent to do duty on the frontier. 
The real work of keeping watch and ward and of being shot by 
Indians, as most people think, should be done by the poor men 
of low estate. 

The Earl of Bellomont arrived and published his commission 
on the thirty-first of July, 1699, remaining in Portsmouth only 
eighteen days and never returning. First impressions are not 
always the best. The correspondence of the Earl reveals what 
his first impressions were and how they were subsequently 
modified. The impression made by him upon the people was a 
pleasing one, and he is known in history as the good and popular 
governor. The following citations from his letters may modify 
the impressions of the reader. 

Writing to the Lords of Trade and Plantations, September 
9, 1699, he says, that the charges of John Usher against William 
Partridge, John Hinckes, William Vaughan and Col. Richard 
Waldron "are not well grounded, proceeding more from Mr. 
Usher's unhappy Cholerick temper than any just occasion given 
by those persons he accused. I have charity enough for Mr. 
Usher to believe he meant well in what he did, yet I can not 
find but that he might have managed the people of New Hamp- 
shire easily enough, had his carriage been moderate." The Earl 

12 MS. at Concord. No. 897. 


says he formed his opinion of Usher principally from the state- 
ments of Mr. Fryer and Mr. Coffin. That is, he wrote home 
about Mr. Usher, as his own opinion, what Usher's opponents 
said against him.^^ 

The Earl goes on to express the wish that the propriety of 
lands in New Hampshire be settled ; that it is impossible that 
there should be an equal and fair trial in the courts between 
Colonel Allen and the inhabitants, "for all are parties against 
him except those that have no substance or anything to lose, 
and such are not legally qualified to be judges or jurors." He 
says that Allen bought Mason's claim for three hundred pounds, 
"the cheapest purchase of that country that ever was heard of 
in any part of the world : for he has often told me, while I was 
at Pascattaway, that he reckoned upon i22,ooo per an. in 
Quitrents at 3d per acre or 6d in the pound rent, and if he 
recovers the lands of that province, he intends to sue the people 
for all damages and trespasses committed in the woods ever 
since the year 79, which would amount to several hundred 
thousand pounds, this he told me himself e". . ."Let his title be 
what it will, I am sure the people here will never submit to part 
with their lands to him, and he must bring an army, if he 
means to get possession of them. After all I pity the man, he 
is I believe very necessitous and much in debt. Mr. Partridge 
intended to arrest him on an action of i2000 he owes him, but 
1 prevailed with him to forbear." He says further that there 
were seven hundred families in the province and that common 
laboring men received as much as three shillings per day, and 
that the forests were being wasted. 

He tells also of his scheme to send two hundred or three 
hundred Mohawks from New York against the eastern Indians. 
His offer was rejected by the governor and council of Massa- 
chusetts. "They only thanked me and refused my offer. Since 
that I have been told their reason was, they would not make 
use of the devill to destroy the devill ; such a nicety and squeam- 
ishnesse as all the rest of the world will laugh at ; as if it were 
a sin to employ those western Indians to Cutt of these eastern 
Indians. They own here at Boston that it has cost 'em 
to manage the war with the eastern Indians during this last 

13 MS. at Concord, No. 909. 


war with ffrance, the losse of a 1000 families, as is Computed, 
and I am of opinion that for £3000 they may have a party of the 
Mohawk & other Indians to fall on the eastern Indians and 
Cut 'em off."i4 

Later letters of the Earl of Bellomont reveal the change in 
his mind and his contempt of such as had risen from the ranks. 
He prefers blue blood to red blood and can not view undisturbed 
a former wage-worker sitting in the seat of the mighty. A rail- 
splitter holding the highest office in America would have 
shocked him beyond power of recovery. In a letter to the Lords 
of Trade, April 23, 1700, he states that masts and ship timber 
were being wasted in New Hampshire ; that Mr. William Part- 
ridge is wrongly exporting such timber to Portugal and making 
large gains thereby; that said "Partridge is not fit for the post 
of Lieut. Governor. He is a Millwright by trade, which is a 
sort of Carpenter, and to set a Carpenter to preserve woods is 
like setting a wolfe to keep sheep.. . .In the next place he is of 
the Country, and the interest of England is neither in his head 
nor his heart, like the generality of the people in these planta- 
tions, and lastly he is a mean man and as such is unfit for 
government. I have nothing to object against his fair dealing 
between man and man. I know him not enough to judge of his 
morals, but what I quarrel at is his selfishnesse and interested- 
ness in prefering a little sordid gain before the interest of Eng- 
land." His views as to the character of governors and inferior 
officers in the future for the plantations are thus expressed, — 
*T mean that they be men of undoubted probity and well born, 
secondly that they be not men of the Country, but Englishmen, 
thirdly that they be men of some fortune in England, to be a 
tye upon them to behave themselves honorably in their respec- 
tive trusts. I should humbly advise the Governors and Lieut. 
Governors especially might be of quality, because 'tis a debasing 
of the King's authority to put those Imployments into the hands 
of little men. I may be allowed to complain of this mischief, 
because I find the ill Consequence of it every day and am put 
to great trouble by that very means. What a disparagement 
was it to Government and the King's authority to advance a 
man that was a Carpenter (and wrought in this town for day- 

14 Cf. Hist, of Sanbornton. 


wages as other Carpenters did) to the post of Governor, to be 
stil'd Excellency, which title after all I believe belongs not to 
any of us, and whether it does or no I little care, a title is what 
I shall never value myself upon. But a mechanick or mean 
Governor like him I have hinted, or like Mr. Partridge, holds 
the reins of Government with too loose a hand. They cannot 
maintain the authority and respect that is necessary to their 
Character, because the people know their meannesse and despise 
'em, and give me leave to say further that mean or Corrupt 
Governors (for I think both Characters alike hurtful) are a great 
allay (sic) to the people's affection toward the King, they con- 
ceiving an idea of their supreme Governor the King according 
to the qualifications of the subordinate Governor he sets over 
them."!^ It is evident that he had contracted an antipathy for 
Mr. Partridge and this may account in part for his ordering 
that a ship belonging to Partridge and laden with pipe staves 
and timber should be detained. Subsequently by the king's 
order the ship was permitted to proceed on her voyage. It is 
evident, too, that the present of five hundred pounds to the Earl 
had not acted as a bribe. New Hampshire and Massachusetts 
never voted him a salary, while New York allowed him four 
hundred pounds annually. A little later Queen Anne ordered 
that the colonies fix the salaries of governors and that the latter 
should receive no presents. Accordingly the salary of Governor 
Joseph Dudley was fixed by New Hampshire at one hundred 
and sixty pounds, the first regular salary allowed to a governor 
in New Hampshire, and liberal enough, considering that Dudley 
got more from Massachusetts. 

In further correspondence the good Earl of Bellomont 
advises that the exportation of all lumber from New Hampshire 
be prohibited and says that the people can as well subsist by 
fishing and that the interests of ten or a dozen private men 
ought not to be put into the scale against the interest of the 
king and kingdom. He questions, also, the validity of Mr. 
Mason's patent of New Hampshire, as no livery of seizin was 
ever given. In his opinion the settlers had no valid claim to their 
lands, and this "will let the Crown into a just Challenge of a good 
Quit rent for all their lands. I have been told the inhabitants 

15 MS. at Concord, No 963. 


have many of them carved themselves great tracts of land. I 
do not find they derive from the Crown, nor from any body else 
that could make 'em a good title." The blooded aristocrat 
appears, concealed under suave and cultivated manners. He is 
neither for Allen nor for the freeholders of New Hampshire, 
but for the king, and he wishes to take away their lands and 
their trade in timber and force them to subsist by fishing, in 
order that the revenue of the king might be increased. He knew 
who had created him Earl of Bellomont. What right had a car- 
penter, like Partridge, to be trading in masts and timber? Do 
not all things belong to the king and his favorites? 

The Earl of Bellomont, on testimony of Robert Armstrong 
the naval officer of New Hampshire, wrote to secretary Vernon, 
June 22, 1700, that Mr. Blaithwait, clerk in the Plantation 
Office in London, had bargained with Colonel Samuel Allen "for 
half his pretended interest in New Hampshire," mentioning 
Blaithwait's "treacherous sale of these plantations from Eng- 
land." Bellomont relates how Samuel Allen urged the marriage 
of his youngest daughter to Bellomont's youngest son, offering 
as dowry ten thousand pounds and half the revenues of the pro- 
vince of New Hampshire.^^ Allen told him that his lands 
comprised one million seven hundred thousand acres, extending 
beyond Cape Ann to Salem, Massachusetts. All this was inter- 
preted by Bellomont as an attempt at bribery, so that the Earl 
might favor the claims of Allen. In a letter to the Lords of 
Trade and Plantations Bellomont urges the appointment of an 
English attorney-general and of English judges, saying that 
"those pettifoggers who practice the law among them are rooks 
and pickpockets, having no skill in the law, but are assuming 
enough to put the people upon litigating their estates and titles, 
and then will they play Jack on both sides and take fees 
from both plaintiff and defendant, so that right or wrong the 
issue at law goes for him that has the better purse." Here is 
his opinion of such lawyers as John Pickering. The cry of the 
oppressed finds its echo in high places.^^ 

About this time John Usher wrote to the lords of trade 
that "it is a principle too much entertained in these parts... 

15 Ms. at Concord, No. 983b. 

16 MS. at Concord, No. 988. 


that acts of Parliament ought not to be laws of Plantations, 
unless [they] had representatives in parliament," a cry that 
became familiar in revolutionary times. Usher says the people 
are "not kingly but for commonwealth government, which pray 
Libera A^os."'^'^ 

In the absence of the Earl of Bellomont William Partridge 
was again the figure-head on the ship of state in New Hamp- 
shire, pointing the way he was turned. He was acceptable to 
the merchants and traders and took care to earn a penny for 
himself by a loose construction of the navigation laws. Ran- 
dolph accused him of smuggling. He says himself that with 
an investment of £300 he shipped timber to Portugal and re- 
ceived £1600 therefor. His whole attention was given to money- 
making, and the province would have been as well cared for, 
if there had been no governor at all. He filled a comfortable 
chair and did nothing to displease. When governor Dudley 
arrived, he entertained him royally and brought in a bill of one 
hundred and forty-six pounds, which the council and assembly 
readily voted. John Hinckes was made chief justice of the 
superior court, with Peter Coffin, John Gerrish and John 
Plaisted for assistants. Colonel Richard Waldron was chief 
justice of the inferior court, and Henry Dow, Theodore Atkin- 
son and John Woodman were his assistants. 

It was the opinion of the Earl of Bellomont that the fort 
on Great Island should be rebuilt. Hence a Dutch engineer, 
Colonel Wolfgang William Romer, was employed to investi- 
gate, draw plans and make estimates of expense. It was or- 
dered in the king's council that a new fort should be built where 
the old one stood, and also a strong tower on the point of Fryer's 
Island, a battery on Wood Island and another on Clark's Island. 
The people were amazed when Romer asked for over six thous- 
and pounds. The assembly replied that they never had been 
able to raise one thousand pounds in a year by taxation, and 
that they were impoverished by the long Indian war, in which 
they had expended more blood and money than their estates 
were worth, and that they were engaged in legal controversy 
with a pretended proprietor. How, then, could they tax them- 
selves so enormously to defend property that might be adjudged 

17 Ibid, No. 1009. 


to another? Besides, the building of such a fort concerned 
Massachusetts as much as themselves, her territory being just 
across the Pascataqua. So they implored the king for mercy 
and aid. They also complained that they were required to 
furnish a quota for the defence of New York in time of need, 
although New York had never lent them any assistance against 
the Indians, while their enemies had received supplies from the 
Dutch at Albany. 

Samuel Allen renewed his suits in the courts with as little 
success as Mason had had. The decisions of New Hampshire 
juries were invariably for the defendant, in spite of all evidences 
and arguments. The courts would not even allow an appeal to 
the king or queen. This was contrary to fundamental law, and 
on petition of Allen an appeal was granted. This refusal of 
courts in the colonies to allow an appeal awakened suspicions 
and fears in England. The drift toward independence was felt. 
"It is a humor that prevails too much in proprieties and charter 
colonies, and the independency they thirst after is now so noto- 
rious," that the whole matter was laid before Parliament for 
some action. So wrote the lords of trade to Bellomont, but be- 
fore the letter was received the Earl died at New York, on the 
fifth of May, 1701, much to the regret of many, among whom he 
had made himself popular. 

The assembly tried to confirm grants of land already made 
and to ascertain the bounds of their townships, but acts to that 
efifect were repealed by the king's court. One act of the assem- 
bly was "that no royal action or writ of ejectment for ye posses- 
sion or title of any lands, nor any personal action or suit where 
the value sewed for exceed the som of twenty pounds" should 
be prosecuted in any court within the province for the space of 
two years. The reason assigned for this was the expenses 
incurred in defending their estates during the Indian wars. 
Meanwhile the persons in possession were to continue in their 
holdings and any trespassers were to pay the damages accruing 
thereby. This was meant to put a bar to the suits of Allen, 
and was as plain a violation of common law as an act of con- 
fiscation of private property. But Allen was very annoying, and 
the people were growing more and more determined to hold 
their possessions by every trick and device possible. It was 
an economic war, and all was considered fair in that struggle. 


Allen was getting old and lacked ready money. Therefore he 
mortgaged one-half of the province to his son-in-law, John 
Usher, for fifteen hundred pounds. The test suit was against 
Colonel Richard Waldron. William Vaughan again was New 
Hampshire's agent at court, and the assembly voted the neces- 
sary funds in spite of their often pleaded poverty. 

Meanwhile King William died and Queen Anne came to 
the throne. She appointed Joseph Dudley, formerly president of 
New England, as governor of Massachusetts and New Hamp- 
shire, April I, 1702, and John Usher soon became lieutenant 
governor of New Hampshire once more, continuing in that of- 
fice from 1703 to 1710. Dudley's commission was published at 
Portsmouth, July 13, 1702, and the assembly voted him a 
present of five hundred pounds and he accepted only two hun- 
dred and fifty pounds. Such gratuities were quite the custom 
in England and in the colonies. They were thought to win favor 
more surely than a fixed salary would do, the latter being not so 
dependent on the good will of the assembly. We have already 
seen how Queen Anne put an end to that sort of bribery. Its 
design was something like that of the more recent free railroad 
passes to legislators, "only for courtesy." 

Governor Dudley soon learned the situation and, February 
I, 1703, he wrote to the lords of trade that there had been some 
irregular proceedings. "The judges are ignorant and the jurors 
stubborn. It is a very hard thing to obtain their just service 
to the Crown, all which will be prevented, if your Lordships 
please to let me have a judge of the admiralty settled here, who 
by the acts of Parliament proceeds without a jury." 

An historical sidelight is a letter of George Jaffrey, a Scotch 
merchant, of Portsmouth, to John Usher, August 20, 1702. He 
writes that the assembly had voted three hundred pounds to 
William Partridge ; that Partridge had suspended him from the 
council through prejudice and malice and because of a personal 
quarrel ; that almost all the council were for Partridge ; that 
Partridge had illegally admitted a vessel laden with iron from 
Bilboa and had doubled the taxes of the province, while Part- 
ridge himself, although a man of considerable wealth was free 
of all taxes ; that he exacted arbitrarily half of the naval officer's 
fees and made the most of other perquisites. On the other hand 
Partridge said he suspended JafTrey from the council for irregu- 


larities in trade. It should be remembered that one of the first 
acts of the council, in 1682, was to declare that the g-overnor and 
council, as well as ministers and elders, should be free from 
taxation. Such sidelights reveal that graft is an old evil under 
a new name. 

The test suit of Allen versus Waldron was won by the 
latter on appeal, because there was no proof that Captain JoHh 
Mason had ever been put in possession of lands by delivery of 
turf and twig, yet the queen's council gave Allen permission to 
begin a new suit, with the proviso, "that if any doubt in lavy 
should arise, the jury should declare what titles each party did 
severally make out to the lands in question, and that the points 
in law should be referred to the court ; or if any doubt should 
arise concerning the evidence, it should be specially stated in 
writing, that if either party should appeal to her majesty, she 
might be more fully informed, in order to a final determina- 
tion." This looks fair and impartial, but it was a trap that the 
freeholders who composed the juries of New Hampshire did not 
fall into. They refused to render a special verdict, even when 
asked to do so by the court. They knew that they had no legal 
title to their estates that would hold in an English court of 
law. They were led to water, but they could not be made to 
drink. So they kept on refusing and delaying and petitioning 
and making excuses and sending agents and continuing to culti- 
vate their farms and to cut as much timber as they wanted to use 
and sell. 

Failing in the law courts Samuel Allen petitioned to the 
queen to be put in possession of the waste lands of the province. 
His petition was referred to the attorney-general, who reported 
that Allen had a valid claim to the waste lands, that all lands 
uninclosed and unoccupied were waste lands, and that Allen 
might take possession of such and prosecute any trespassers. 
Such a decision, if it could be enforced, would take away the 
common pasturage and the wood-lots of the farmers. New 
Hampshire's agent, William Vaughan, protested against Allen's 
claims and especially against the reappointment of John Usher 
as lieutenant governor, but without avail. 

The lords of trade recommended to the Queen, April 23, 
1703, that William Partridge be removed from office and that 
John Usher be appointed in his stead. They said that Part- 


ridge had neglected his instructions and that being a trader he 
had an opportunity to monopolize trade. The next day the 
queen ordered that a draught for a commission for Usher be 
prepared. Vaughan represented that Usher had oppressed the 
people during his former administration ; that he had sent to 
prison and to remote garrison duty some who opposed him ; 
that he wasted gun powder in requiring salutes of nine, eleven 
and sometimes fifteen guns, to his own honor, to be fired when 
he went out of or came into the harbor ; that he had turned com- 
petent men out of office and appointed mean men, who some- 
times in drunkenness abused and fined the people ; that he was 
egotistical and arbitrary in ordering the militia and trainbands 
to wait on him and accompany him. To all these objections of 
Vaughan a sufficient answer was sent by Usher to the board of 
trade, showing Vaughan's exaggerations and misrepresentations. 
He had never impressed any assemblymen, nor anybody else, 
except with the advice of militia officers. The pleas of both 
Vaughan and Usher, by counsel, were heard by the lords of 
trade and their decision was that Usher "does not appear to 
them to have been guilty of Vaughan's charges, but that the dis- 
turbances which happened in that time did in great measure 
proceed from the disorderly practice of some of those men who 
now oppose his being restored by your Majesty to that Govern- 

John Usher obtained a new commission as lieutenant gov- 
ernor, July 26, 1703, but he was especially restricted from med- 
dling "with the appointment of judges or juries, or otherwise 
in matters relating to the disputes between Allen and the inhab- 
itants." On the appearance of Usher, William Partridge was 
dismissed at his own request, to attend to business affairs. He 
removed to Newbury, Massachusetts, and devoted the remainder 
of his life, as he had done before, to the accumulation of wealth 
in the mercantile profession. Usher was unable to get posses- 
sion of the records of the province, held by the recorder in 
spite of an order from the home government to deliver them to 
the new secretary, Samuel Penhallow ; nor could he get any sal- 
ary voted to himself nor grant of a house to live in. The utmost 
they felt able to do was to allow him the use of two rooms in 

18 MS. at Concord, No. 11 78. 


New Castle till the next meeting of the assembly and thirty- 
eight shillings for his trip to and from Boston, where he lived 
most of the time. At the same time governor Dudley directed 
him to live in New Castle during the time of the war, thinking 
that a lieutenant governor at least ought to live within the 
bounds of the province he was supposed to rule. 

The council and assembly were willing to recognize Allen's 
claim to waste land, they meaning by that term land outside of 
the four original towns and Kingston. In response to a speech 
of governor Dudley they replied that the "province is at Least 
Sixty miles Long and twenty miles Wide Containing 1200 
Square miles and that the inhabitants have only Claim to the 
Property of such land as is Contained within their Town Bounds 
which is less than one-third part of the Province and has been 
Possess't by them and their Ancestors for more than Sixty 
years, but have nothing to offer as a grievance if the Other two 
thirds be Adjudged to Mr. Allen, but shall be glad to See the 
Same Planted and Settled for the Better Securitye & Defence 
of the whole.... We humbly hope that her Majesty's Intention 
is not to take Off the Herbage Timber and Fuel! from the inhab- 
itants without which they Cannot Subsist, and less than the 
Bounds of their Present Towns, which were but four in Number 
untill of Late two were Divided, will not give Feed for their 
Cattle and Timber and Fuell Necessary, it being not usual in 
these Plantations to Fence much more of their Lands than 
Serves for Tillage & Leaving the Rest Unfenced for the Feed 
of their Cattle in Common. "^^ 

Allen had entered upon the waste land within the townships 
and had taken legal possession in the presence of witness by 
"cutting down trees, and by turf and twig, and by grazing his 
horses" at the following places, at Wiggin's brook in Exeter, 
near the great hill in Portsmouth, within half a mile of William 
Furber's house in what is now Newington, within half a mile 
of Mr. Seavey's house in New Castle, and near the Little Boar's 
Head in Hampton. Again he began his suit against Waldron 
and the jury found for the defendant and refused to bring in a 
special verdict. Governor Dudley tried to reach the court, but 
was hindered by reports of a raid by Indians and again by sick- 

19 N. H. State Papers, Vol. XXIX, p. 163. 


ness. So nothing was done to compel or persuade the juries to 
find a special verdict and show on what grounds they based their 
titles. Allen could do nothing but again appeal to the queen. 
He was now worn out with age and troubles and was willing 
to make a compromise with the freeholders. The terms proposed 
seemed to offer something better than continual litigation that 
might be pressed by Usher or the heirs of Allen, and an end of 
strife and uncertainty was much desired. Therefore a conven- 
tion of delegates chosen by the freeholders of all the towns was 
called, to meet at Portsmouth May i, 1705, each town to send 
two delegates. The convention came to the following resolu- 
tions : 

That they had not on behalf of themselves nor any the Inhabitants of 
this Province, whom they represented, any Challenge or Claim to Any part 
of this Province extra the Bounds of the four Towrns of Portsmouth, 
Hampton, Dover and Exeter with the Hamlets of Newcastle and Kingstown 
&c appertaining, which were all comprehended by a Line, on the western 
part of Dover and Kingstown already known and laid out, and should be 
forthwith revised, but that the said Samuel Allen Esqr his Heirs and 
Assigns might peaceably hold and enjoy the said great waste Containing 40 
Miles in length and 20 Miles in Breadth or there abouts at the Heads of 
the four Towns aforesaid, if so should please her Majesty: and that the 
Inhabitants of this Province at all times be so far from giving Interruption to 
the Settlement thereof, that they declare on their behalf and by the power 
given them that they desire by all means, that the Waste might be planted 
and filled with Inhabitants, the Lands being very capable thereof, to whom 
they would all give their assistance and encouragement as far as they were 

That in case Samuel Allen should for himself his Heirs Executors &c 
for ever quit clame unto the present Inhabitants, their Heirs and Assigns 
for ever of all that Tract of Land and every part and parcell thereof with 
all privilages &c Situate lying and being within the several Towns of this 
Province to the extents of the Bounds thereof, and also warrant and 
defend the same to the Inhabitants against all manner of persons whatsoever 
free from Mortgage Intailment and all Other Manner of Incumbrances; 
and that this agreement and the Lands therein Contained should be Accepted 
and confirmed by her Majesty, then and in such case they agree to lot and 
lay Out Unto Samuel Allen his Heirs and Assigns for ever five Hundred 
Acres of Land Out of the Townships of Portsmouth ; And Newcastle ; 1500 
Acres Out of the Township of Dover, 1500 Acres out of the Township of 
Hampton and Kings Town, And 1500 Acres out of the Township of Exeter; 
All which Lands should be laid out to him, the said Samuel Allen Out of the 
Commonages of the respective Towns in such place or places not exceeding 
three places in a Town as should be most convenient to Mr. Allen and least 
detrimental to the Inhabitants of the Town — 


And further they agree to pay Samuel Allen his Heirs or Assigns two 
thousand Pounds Current Money of New England, that is to say, one 
thousand Pounds within Twelve months after the receipt of her Majesty's 
Confirmation of this their Agreement and the Other thousand pounds within 
Twelve Months after the first payment. 

And further that all Contracts and bargains formerly made between Mr. 
Mason and Mr. Allen with any the Inhabitants or Other her Majestys Sub- 
jects which were bonafide for Lands or other Privileges in the Possession 
of their Tenants in their own just Right, besides the Claim of Mr. Mason 
or Mr. Allen and no Other shall be accounted good & vaUd by these articles ; 
But if any the Purchasers, Lessees or Tenants should refuse to pay their 
just part of what Should be agreed to be paid, referring to this Affair in 
equal proportion with the rest of the Inhabitants According to the Land 
they hold for their Share should be abated by Mr. Allen Out of the Two 
Thousand Pounds payable to him by this Agreement. 

And further that Upon Mr. Aliens Acceptance and Underwriting of 
these Articles they promised to give good Personal Security for the pay- 
ments aforesaid. 

And further that all Actions and suits in the Law depending or there- 
after to be brought Conserning the premises Should cease determine and 
be void, Untill her Majestys pleasure Should be further known therein." 

Mr. Allen died the next day and so the whole plan fell to 
the ground. It was a generous offer made to Mr. Allen. It 
was an acknowledgment of the justice of his claim, while it 
safeguarded the freeholders in their improved estates. 

Mr. Allen died May 5, 1705, in his seventieth year, and was 
buried in the fort at New Castle. 

After the death of Governor Allen, his son, Thomas Allen, 
renewed the suit against Waldron, having sold to Sir Charles 
Hobby, for seven hundred and fifty pounds, one-fourth of all 
the possessions in New England that Captain John Mason 
claimed. As this was a test case, all the evidences and docu- 
ments for and against the claim of Mason and his heirs and 
assigns were brought together and arrayed by able lawyers. 
The counsel for Allen were James Meinzies and John Valentine ; 
for Waldron, John Pickering and Charles Story. In this suit 
were first produced the famous Wheelwright deed and other 
papers in supporting it, now acknowledged to have been forg- 
eries, and also it became publicly known that the province 
records had been mutilated by the removal of twenty-eight 
leaves. The arguments of the defendant were specious and 
technical, well suited to the prejudices of jurors from the towns 
especially concerned. Each juryman must have felt that it 


was his own case under an assumed name, and that his decision 
must be such as to defend his own property. The jury found 
for Waldron and refused to render a special verdict. Appeal 
was made to the queen, who delayed judgment till the death of 
Thomas Allen, in 171 5, put an end to the suit, with nothing 
finally determined. 

During the period covered by this chapter the town of New 
Castle was incorporated. Its charter is dated May 30, 1693. 
It included within its limits Great Island, Little Harbor and 
Sandy Beach (now Rye), all taken from the town of Portsmouth 
after considerable opposition from the other portions of that 
town. The line ran from "a point of land on the south side of 
Sagamores Creek called Sampsons point, and from thence south- 
west by the outside of the fenced land of Sagamores Creek to 
the head of Aaron Moses field, to an old hemlock tree by the 
side of the Road way, and from thence upon the aforesaid 
Southwest point to the Road way, between Sandy Beach and 
Greenland, leaving Greenland about three miles to the West- 
wards, soe forwards upon the same point to Hampton bounds, 
and then east to the sea." A quit rent of one peppercorn, pay- 
able to the crown on the twenty-fifth day of October yearly for- 
ever, is specified in the charter. Two constables and three 
overseers of the poor were to be chosen annually. Every Wed- 
nesday was to be a Fair, or market day, when there should be 
free use of the ferry. Two years later the inhabitants of New 
Castle petitioned for the annexation of a large part of the com- 
mons of Hampton, which bordered on their southern limit, but 
this was opposed by the people of Hampton. 

On the sixth of August, 1694, the town of Kingston was 
incorporated, taken from the western part of Hampton, on pe- 
tition of James Prescott Senior, Ebenezer Webster and others. 
It comprised the present towns of East Kingston, Danville 
(formerly Hawke), and a part of Sandown. The first settlers 
came from Hampton, Ipswich, Newbury and Salisbury ; among 
them were Moses Elkins, Jonathan Sanborn, Ichabod Robie, 
Thomas Philbrick, Jabez Coleman, and Ebenezer Webster, an- 
cestor of Daniel Webster. The Rev. Benjamin Choate was the 
first settled minister. 

chapter X 

Chapter X 


Samuel Penhallow — French Mission at Norridgewock — Conference of Dud- 
ley with Sachems at Casco — Indians Suspicious and Untrustworthy — 
Indian Tom Attacks Village in Hampton — Scouting Parties and Senti- 
nels — Nathaniel Meader Killed at Oyster River — Captivity of Tamsen 
Ham — Burning of Norridgewock — Families of John Drew and John 
Wheeler Killed at Oyster River Point — Attack on Dunstable — Samuel 
Blake Killed at Hampton — The Rickers Slain at Cochecho — Four Mowers 
Killed at Exeter — Nicholas Pearl of Dover Slain in His Cave — Bounty 
Offered for Killing and Capturing Indians — The Philosophic Squaw — 
New Hampshire Men at Port Royal — Girls Captured at Bunker's Gar- 
rison — Capt. Samuel Chesley and Others Slain at Oyster River — Inhabi- 
tants of Kingston Flee — Victims at Exeter and Death of Col. Winthrop 
Hilton — Children of Richard Dolloff Taken to Canada — More Killed at 
Cochecho — Treaty of Utrecht followed by Treaty with the Indians at 

TT is the aim of this chapter to give as full an account as can 
^ be gathered of the depredations of the French and Indians 
in New Hampshire during the ten years of guerrilla warfare that 
began in 1703. Fortunately a valuable history of this period 
was written, as he says, with tearful eyes, by the Hon. Samuel 
Penhallow of Portsmouth, who was a man of literary culture as 
well as prominent in the government of the province. Educated 
in England he came to New England in 1686, with the purpose 
of entering the christian ministry, and propositions were made 
him to become a missionary among the Indians. He attributes 
the punishments received by the settlers of Maine and New 
Hampshire to the fact that they had not cared as they should 
have done for the spiritual welfare of the natives. Marrying a 
daughter of President Cutt, he attained to wealth and position 
easily. For some years he was a member of the governor's 
council, and he also served as recorder and treasurer of the 
province, as captain in the militia and as justice and chief justice 
of the superior court. He died at Portsmouth, December 2, 
1726, aged sixty-one years and five months. The events of this 
chapter are substantially as narrated by him, the account being 



supplemented by statements from the Rev. John Pike's Journal 
and by extracts from public records. 

As in previous Indian raids the cause of these ten years of 
suffering was mainly across the Atlantic, in the war between 
England and France. All the territory east of the Kennebec 
river was claimed by France. This took in the old English 
settlement at Pemaquid and other smaller places along the coast 
and rivers of Maine. The French established a mission among 
the Indians at Norridgewock, on the upper Kennebec, a mission 
that had political and military as well as religious ends in 
view. It was a rallying place for hostile forces and thither were 
led many captives. 

Governor Dudley had orders to rebuild the fort at Pemaquid 
and so hold the eastern country, but he was unable to raise the 
money necessary for such purpose. On account of insults and 
threats offered by the Indians, instigated by French agents, the 
governor took with him a number of gentlemen from both 
Massachusetts and New Hampshire and met the sachems of 
several tribes at Casco, on the twentieth of June, 1702. The 
tribes represented were those of Norridgewock, Penobscot, 
Pequaket, Penacook and Ameriscoggin. The Indians numbered 
two hundred and fifty, in sixty-five canoes, well armed and 
painted in suspicious colors. Their orator. Captain Simmo, 
assured the governor that the Indians "aimed at nothing more 
than peace ; and that as high as the sun was above the earth, 
so far distant should their designs be of making the least breach 
between each other." A belt of wampum was given, and both 
parties added more stones to the piles, called the Two Brothers, 
which had been heaped up at a former treaty. Subsequeently it 
was discovered that the Indians at that time intended to seize 
the governor and his attendants, and they failed to accomplish 
their design only because of the delay of two hunderd French 
and Indians to arrive at the expected time. In the salute fired 
the Indians were careful to have the whitemen discharge their 
guns first, remembering perhaps the fact that the Indians did 
this in the sham fight at Dover, some years before, with results 
disastrous to themselves. While the whitemen fired guns 
loaded only with powder, the Indians were cautious enough to 
ram home leaden bullets. The affair passed quietly, but within 
six weeks all the eastern country was ablaze with burning 


houses and garrisons. A body of five hundred French and 
Indians divided into several parties and fell upon Casco and 
Wells, August tenth. Every house between those places was 
attacked, and the usual slaughter followed. ]\Iany were killed, 
and one hundred and thirty persons were captured. 

On the seventeenth of August, 1703, Captain Tom with 
thirty Indians attacked a small village in the southern part of 
Hampton, near the Salisbury line. Two houses were plundered, 
and five persons were killed. Widow Mussey, a noted speaker 
among the Quakers, was dragged into the bushes of a swamp 
where the Indians were concealed, and there her brains were 
beaten out with a tomahawk. Thomas Lancaster was killed on 
his way home from mill. They beat the head of Jonathan Green 
with the butts of their guns and mangled him in a horrible man- 
ner. Nicholas Bond was killed and scalped in his own house, 
and a little boy of William Hinckley was seized as he was climb- 
ing a fence and his brains were dashed out against a plow. 

The province was thoroughly alarmed. Every fourth man 
who was fit for service volunteered. Scouting parties, under 
Major Winthrop Hilton and Captain John Oilman of Exeter and 
Captain Samuel Chesley and Captain James Davis of Oyster 
River scoured the woods in vain to find the sculking enemy. 
Sentinels were posted to guard men working in the fields. The 
garrisons were filled with women and children. There was con- 
tinual fear of a massacre in some unexpected place. A public 
fast was ordered to pray "for the preservation of this Province 
and the good success of the forces now gone against the Indian 

On the twenty-fifth of April 1704, Nathaniel Meader, who 
lived at the mouth of Oyster River, on the north side, was shot 
"not far from the place where Nicholas Follet formerly lived." 
This was on the south side of the river. IMeader's dead body was 
mangled in a barbarous manner. The next day Edward Taylor 
of Exeter was slain near Lamprey river, and his wife and son 
were carried to Canada. She was afterward redeemed. Thence 
the Indians went to Cochecho, hoping to get Colonel Richard 
Waldron, son of the Major Waldern who was slain in 1689. 
His servant maid, Tamsen Meserve, was surprised by four In- 
dians, at a spring in the colonel's pasture and, having examined 
her as to her master, the state of the garrison and other affairs, 


knocked her on the head and left her for dead. She recovered, 
however, and married Joseph Ham the same year. There is 
some doubt about this particular narrative. The Rev. John 
Pike affirms it, but Mr. Belknap says the girl invented the story 
to palliate her too long absence. It may be that tradition has 
confused Tamsen Meserve with her daughter Tamsen Ham, who 
certainly was captured by Indians and remained in captivity 
several years, returning to marry Thomas Drew and after his 
death Thomas Spinney of Kittery. She died in 1799, aged 90. 
Both Penhallow and Belknap say that William Tasker was 
wounded about this time, but he had died in 1697. It was 
Samuel Tasker, his son, who was slain by Indians June i, 1704, 
as narrated by the Rev. John Pike. Mark Giles senior of Co- 
checho and his son John were slain by eight or nine Indians, as 
they were passing a corner of their field. This was on the 
eleventh of August. On the nineteenth of the same month 
Joseph Pitman of Oyster River was slain as he was guarding 
some mowers, not far from the old meeting house, at the oyster 

During the year 1705 New Hampshire was quite free from 
depredations, the Indians giving special attention to Kittery. 
Twenty friendly Indians from Massachusetts were sent to scout 
on the borders, and these with two hundred and fifty men, under 
command of Colonel Winthrop Hilton of Exeter went to Nor- 
ridgewock on snow shoes, but found no Indians there. Their 
deserted wigwams and chapel were burned, nothwithstanding 
the Indians had spared the church at Oyster River, in the mas- 
sacre of 1694. Pike records that Nathaniel Tebbetts of Oyster 
River was carried away by the Indians about sun-set of Nov- 
ember 4, 1705, it being a sabbath. Ten men were employed as 
scouts continually on the frontier, and a nightly patrol was 
established along the shore from Hampton to Rendezvous Point, 
now Odiorne's Point, to prevent a surprisal by sea. The winter 
passed without further molestation, the Indians not being able 
to use snow shoes as the soldiers and scouts of the province did. 

The spring showed that hostile plans had not been aban- 
doned, and Oyster River again suffered. On the twenty-seventh 
of April, 1706, the Indians stole into the southern part of the 
Point district, which fronts easterly on Little Bay, and attacked 
the house of John Drew, killing eight and wounding two. No 


man was in the garrison near by, and the women defended it, 
firing so briskly that the enemy were deceived and went away. 
The women put on hats and loosened their hair so as to appear 
as men. John Wheeler met the Indians and supposing them to 
be friendly fell into their hands and was slain with his wife and 
two children. Four other children are said to have been saved 
by taking refuge in a cave by the bank of Little Bay. 

A party of two hundred and seventy Indians, concerning 
whom warning had been given by Colonel Schuyler, attacked 
Dunstable in July, 1706. The Weld garrison, so called, about 
half a mile from the present state line, was occupied by twenty 
troopers. They were surprised and half of their number were 
slain. Six inhabitants of the town also were killed, viz., Na- 
thaniel Blanchard and his wife, Lydia, their daughter, Susan 
Blanchard, Mrs. Hannah Blanchard, the wife of John Cumings 
and Rachel Galusha. The town records say that they died the 
third day of July. A bounty of forty pounds had been offered 
for Indian scalps, and Captain John Tyng of Dunstable went 
in winter to the Indian headquarters and got five, receiving 
therefor two hundred pounds. From Dunstable the Indians 
went to Amesbury and killed eight persons, and thence to 
Kingston, where they killed some cattle, and slew Joseph Eng- 
lish, a friendly Indian, and Captain Butterfield, taking Mrs. 
Butterfield prisoner. Samuel Blake of Hampton was shot on the 
fourth sabbath of June. On the fourth day of June Marturin 
Ricker of Cochecho was killed in his field and a little son was 
taken. At the same time George Ricker was killed while run- 
ning up the lane near the garrison. On the twenty-third of 
July about twenty Indians attacked ten men in Exeter, while 
they were mowing. Four were killed, viz., Richard Mattoon 
and his son, Hubertus, Robert Barber and Samuel Pease. John 
Taylor was sorely wounded but recovered. Edward Hall, Sam- 
uel Mighill and a mulatto were captured, but two of them 
escaped, wandering three weeks in the woods and subsisting on 
roots and rinds of trees. On the first of August Sergeant Ben- 
jamin Fifield of Hampton was barbarously killed in his pasture 
by an ambush of seven or eight Indians, as he was riding horse- 
back. A lad, his kinsman, was carried away. The next day 
Nicholas Pearl of Dover was slain in a cave, where he had 
dwelt three years and would not be persuaded to seek a place 


of safety. Probate records show that he came from Ipswich 
and left a son, John Pearl, born there July 17, 1692. Thus the 
sculking foe struck here and there, usually in the night, or 
toward morning, killed the surprised and defenceless and hid 
out of sight. Therefore few Indians comparatively were killed. 
It was estimated that every Indian killed cost the country a 
thousand pounds. 

In 1707 we read that Colonel Winthrop Hilton had learned 
to imitate the military tactics of the enemy. He intended to 
lead an expedition of over two hundred men to Norridgewock, 
but got only as far as Black Point, in Scarborough. It was in 
January, and the snows were deep. Here he struck an Indian 
trail and following it up killed four and took an old squaw, who 
conducted them to a party of eighteen, asleep on a neck of 
land. The Indians were surprised at break of day, and seventeen 
of the number were slain, and one was captured. This is Pen- 
hallow's account. Pike says that this event occurred on the 
seventh of Febrary, that two men and a squaw were killed, 
while a young squaw and two children were taken. Penhallow 
records that on the very morning that Hilton slew the seventeen 
Indians "it was publicly talked of at Portsmouth in every article, 
and with little or no variation, although ninety miles away." 
Some would explain this as a plain case of telepathy. 

It was during this year that a wounded squaw was brought 
in to Portsmouth and received medical aid. The bill for med- 
icines, provisions and nursing was seventy-one pounds, fifteen 
shillings and four pence, and the bill was allowed by the Gen- 
eral Assembly, poor as the province then was. There is another 
record, not so honorable to New Hampshire, dated the twelfth 
of May, 1 71 1, when the Assembly voted, "That for Indian man 
slayn in the Province sixty pounds, for every woman thirty 
pounds, and for every minor or Papoose fifteen pounds be payd 
out of the treasury." This must mean that the bounty was 
ofifered for the capture of squaws and papooses, and not for their 
killing. New Hampshire never ofifered a reward for the murder 
of women and children. Penhallow tells us that Samuel But- 
terfield killed a noted sagamore and that he was brought to the 
Indian's widow to receive his sentence, thinking that the pen- 
alty would be something terrible. The philosophic squaw said, 
"If by killing him you can bring my husband to life again, I 


beg you to study what death you please ; but if not, let him 
be my servant." Let the squaw teach us how to treat criminals.^ 

In 1707 some aspersions were cast upon the character of 
governor Joseph Dudley, because he had not allowed Major 
Church to attempt the capture of Port Royal, in Nova Scotia, 
it being alleged that Dudley was interested in a clandestine 
trade with the French there. A petition asking for his removal 
was addressed to the queen, and upon its being read before the 
general assembly of New Hampshire, both houses unanimously 
requested the queen to continue Gov. Dudley in his office, ex- 
pressing their entire satisfaction in the way he had administered 
the affairs of the province and defended it against the enemy. 
Six ministers of the province also addressed to the queen a pro- 
test against the governor's removal from office, calling him "an 
example of religion, virtue and moderation to all good men." 
This may have stirred up the governor to attempt the capture 
of Port Royal without aid from England, and an expedition was 
sent against it, commanded by Colonel March. Colonel Win- 
throp Hilton of Exeter commanded one regiment, and Captain 
Samuel Chesley of Oyster River led a company of men from 
Hampton. The expedition accomplished nothing more than the 
killing of some cattle. There was a lack of harmony among the 
officers, and the invaders departed in a disorderly manner. 
Chesley affirmed, when called to an account by the Council at 
Portsmouth that "general orders were given at Port Royal for 
every person to make the best of his way home."^ Accordingly 
his men scattered on their arrival at Portsmouth, to be reas- 
sembled at beat of drum. Governor Dudley ordered the troops 
back to Port Royal, a pardon being offered to those who vol- 
untarily returned. On the second landing near Port Royal some 
shirmish occurred between the troops and Indians in ambush, 
but the little army grew sick and discouraged, and after a month 
of inactivity came home again, having lost sixteen killed and as 
many wounded. 

Meanwhile the frontiers of New Hampshire were harassed 
as before. On the twenty-second of May, 1707, two young 
girls were captured near Bunker's garrison at Oyster River and 

1 See Penhallow in N. H. Hist. Coll., Vol. I. p. 53, top. 

2 N. H. Prov. Papers, Vol. II, p. 505. 


carried to Canada, where they were baptized. The record there 
shows that one of the girls was Marie Anne, daughter of Thomas 
and Mary (Bunker) Drew; the other was Elizabeth, daughter of 
Nathaniel and Deliverance (Clark) Lomax. On the eighth of 
July John Bunker and Ichabod Rawlins of Oyster River were 
slain by a party of twenty or thirty Indians, as they were driving 
a cart from Zachariah Field's garrison to Bunker's for a loom, 
and fifteen or more cattle belonging to Stephen Jones were 
slaughtered. Again the foe crept into the settlement at Oyster 
River and on the seventeenth of September Captain Samuel 
Chesley, only just returned from Port Royal, his brother James 
Chesley and six other stout young men were slain by a party of 
French Mohawks while they were cutting and hauling timber, 
not far from Captain Chesley's house. At the first fire of the 
hidden Indians seven were killed. Philip Chesley and three 
more escaped. The Indian that killed James Chesley was at 
once shot by Robert Thompson, who afterward received five 
pounds for his scalp, by order of the governor. Stephen Gilman 
and his brother, Jacob, were ambushed and shot at, as they were 
riding from Exeter to Kingston. The former had his horse shot 
under him and narrowly escaped being scalped. On the seven- 
teenth of September Henry Elkins was killed at Kingston. 
That place was much alarmed, and eight of its inhabitants who 
fled for safety were ordered back to help defend the town. 

The Indians again appeared at Oyster River on the eigh- 
teenth of September, 1708, when three of them assaulted David 
Kincaid at his house, not far from Woodman's garrison, firing 
three shots at him and his lad. The last depredation committed 
at this place during this war was on the thirtieth of June, 1709, 
when Bartholomew Stevenson, Jr., was slain by an ambuscade 
near Woodman's garrison. 

On the eighth of May, 1709, William Moody, Samuel 
Stevens and two sons of Jeremiah Gilman were captured at 
Pickpocket mill in Exeter. Moody escaped and was retaken, 
and having been bound to a stake was roasted alive. Ephraim 
Folsom was slain June eleventh, between Exeter and Hilton's 
garrison. The following year, on the twenty-second of July 
Colonel Winthrop Hilton of Exeter was surprised while peeling 
bark fourteen miles from his home. Hilton was killed and two 
more, and two were taken. The rest made no opposition, their 


guns being wet, but fled in terror. Hilton was scalped, his 
brains was split by hatchets, and a lance was found that pierced 
his heart. One hundred men were quickly mustered and marched 
in pursuit of the Indians, but as usual they found none. Colonel 
Hilton was thirty-nine years of age, a skillful military officer, 
much esteemed for his noble character. His friends greatly 
lamented his death, while the Indian foe rejoiced that so mighty 
a white sachem had fallen. The same day that he fell the 
Indians appeared in the open road at Exeter and took four 
children at their play. These may have been children of Richard 
Dollofif, to whom the council and assembly granted ten pounds 
towards the ransom of three children in Canada. He paid nearly 
twenty-three pounds for the ransom of one of his children, besides 
expenses of journey to Canada. In a petition he expressed his 
intention to go again for the other two children. He married 
in 1700, Catherine, daughter of John Bean of Exeter.^ They 
also took John Wedgwood and killed John Magoon, who for 
three days before was in melancholy apprehension arising from 
a dream of being murdered. That same day also a band of 
Indians that had pretended friendship for the inhabitants of 
Kingston ambushed a road in that town and killed Samuel Wins- 
low and Samuel Huntoon, carrying into captivity Philip Hun- 
toon and Jacob Oilman, who afterward purchased their liberty 
by building a saw-mill for the governor of Canada. The same 
year an expedition was sent against Port Royal, in which one 
hundred New Hampshire men were commanded by Colonel 
Shadrach Walton, who long had command of the fort at New 
Castle. The expedition was successful, and the name of the 
place was changed to Annapolis, in honor of Queen Anne. 

Jacob Garland of Cochecho was slain toward the end of the 
season as he was returning from public worship. In the spring 
of 171 1 Thomas Downs, John Church, son of the John Church 
who was killed in 1696, and three more were slain at Cochecho, 
by an ambuscade that waylaid them returning from meeting. 
John Horn was wounded, and Humphrey Foss was taken, but 
rescued by the bravery of Lieutenant Heard. In the same year 
an expedition against Quebec met with disastrous failure. The 
fleet sailed from Boston on the 30th of July. It consisted of 

3 N. H. Prov. Papers, p. 585. 


fifteen ships of war and forty transports, and carried over five 
thousand troops, most of them from England. Colonel Shadrack 
Walton of Portsmouth commanded one regiment, and New 
Hampshire's quota was one hundred men, spared with difficulty 
from the forces needed to defend the frontier. All went well 
till the fleet arrived some leagues within the Saint Lawrence 
river. On the night of the twenty-third of August, the weather 
being thick and dark, nine transports were wrecked on the north 
shore, and about six hundred men perished, only one of them 
being from New England. The expedition was abandoned and 
the land forces that had been sent against Montreal were re- 
called. The fleet returned to England, and the New England 
troops came home, unjustly blamed for their failure. The fog 
and east wind were their worst foe. If little events may be 
compared with great, this disaster may be likened to the over- 
throw of Pharaoh's host by a strong east wind, or to the wreck 
of the Spanish Armada. 

In the year 1712 the Indians renewed their raids on the 
western frontier of New Hampshire, killing Mr. Cunningham on 
the road from Mr. Hilton's to Exeter on the sixteenth of April, 
shooting Jeremiah Crommett at Oyster River, near to Lamprey 
River, on which stream a mill was burned with many boards. 
Next day Ensign Tuttle was slain at Tole-end, in Dover, and a 
son of Lieutenant Heard was wounded as he stood sentinel. 
Soon after, at Kingston, Stephen Oilman was wounded, captured 
and barbarously murdered, and Ebenezer Stevens was wounded. 
Two children belonging to John Waldron were taken on a sab- 
bath in July, at Cochecho, from Heard's garrison, "and not hav- 
ing time to scalp them, they cut off both their heads and car- 
ried them away. There was not a man at that time at home ; 
however, one Esther Jones supplied the place of several, for she 
courageously advanced the watch box, crying aloud, 'here they 
are, come on, come on' ; which so terrified them as to make them 
draw off, without doing any further mischief." Captain James 
Davis of Oyster River kept his scouts moving on the frontier, 
from Salmon Falls to Kingston and so further harm was pre- 
vented. The province of Maine suffered somewhat after this, 
but in the autumn arrived the news of the treaty of Utrecht, 
and on the twenty-ninth of August the suspension of arms was 
proclaimed at Portsmouth. This was followed the next year 


by a formal treaty with the eastern Indians, through their 
sachems convened at Portsmouth, July eleventh. The Indians 
acknowledged that they had wickedly broken former treaties and 
solemnly promised to do so no more, and that no Indians should 
come nigh any settlements west of the Saco river. All difficulties 
were to be settled in courts of justice, held by the English of 
course, where justice poised her balances in the hand of the 
whiteman. Thus ended another war in New England which 
never would have been fought except for the rivalries of Eng- 
land and France, 

chapter XI 




chapter XI 


Death of Usher— Governor Burges— Death of Dudley— Appointment of 
Governor Shute — Lieutenant Governor George Vaughan — Concentration 
of Power at Portsmouth — New Councilors — Bills of Credit — Arrogance 
of George Vaughan Rebuked — Appointment of John Wentworth as 
Lieutenant Governor — Character of Wentworth — Pine Trees— Hemp and 
Flax— PubHc Punishments of Criminals— The Boundary Line Unsettled 
— Settlement of Londonderry — Incorporation of Chester, Nottingham, 
Barrington and Rochester — Grant to the Children of Samuel Allen — 
Dignity of the Legislators — Oppositions between the Two Houses — 
Valuation of the Province — Triennial Act. 

THE accession of George I. to the throne in the year 171 5 
occasioned a change of officers in the provinces. Governor 
Joseph Dudley had been very popular, and the assembly of New 
Hampshire petitioned that he be continued in office. His popT 
ularity was due in large part to the fact that he favored the 
claims of the freeholders against those of Allen. On the other 
hand Lieutenant Governor Usher, although he had done more 
for the province than Governor Dudley and had expended a con- 
siderable sum from his own property in the time of the wars for 
the defence of the province, was unpopular because of his 
austere and perhaps too dignified manner and because he was 
interested in sustaining the claims of Allen. Usher seems to 
have done his whole duty to the king and to the province. He 
visited it often and remained as long as he could be of any 
service. In spite of the unwillingness of council and assembly 
to vote him any proper compensation for his services he con- 
tinued to uphold the honor of his office and to render service for 
parsimonious neglect. A few pounds was all that was ever 
voted to him, to pay the bare expenses of his lodging in New 
Castle and his traveling expenses to and from Boston. Once he 
complained to the council that "his negro servants were much 
better accommodated in his house than the queen's governor 
was in the queen's fort." On his dismission from office he re- 



tired to his home at Medford, Massachusetts, where he died 
September 5, 1726, in the seventy-eighth year of his age. 

Governor Dudley was succeeded by Colonel Eliseus Burges 
as governor of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and George 
Vaughan, son of William Vaughan, the well known councilor, 
was appointed lieutenant governor. George Vaughan had acted 
as agent of the province in London, and for his services the 
province paid him four hundred pounds in the year 1709.^ He 
was in London at the time of his appointment. His aged father 
and the people of Portsmouth were well pleased at his appoint- 
ment to this high office, and they expected more from a resident 
lieutenant governor of their own number than from an absentee 
stranger. Indeed it was feared that Burges would not be accept- 
able, and so Sir William Ashurst, Jeremy Dummer, agent for 
Massachusetts, and Jonathan Belcher offered to him one thous- 
and pounds sterling on condition of resigning his commission, 
and he was wise enough to accept the money advanced by 
Dummer and Belcher, How they were reimbursed does no( 
appear. In the place of Burges Colonel Samuel Shute was made 
governor of both provinces, and his commission was published 
October 17, 1716. Governor Dudley retired to Roxbury, where 
he died in 1720, in the seventy-third year of his age. 

Colonel Shute was a native of London and had served in the 
army in Flanders, being wounded in one engagement. He con- 
tinued in the office of governor a little more than six years, and 
spent much of this time in London. In his absence during the 
first year George Vaughan acted as governor of New Hampshire, 
and his administration is said to have given general satisfaction. 
Formerly other towns than Portsmouth had been represented in 
the council, but now six councilors, all from that town, were 
appointed. This caused a remonstrance on the part of the 
assembly, addressed to the governor with the request that it be 
forwarded to the king. It recounts that formerly the councilors 
resided proportionally in the several towns of the province and 
that this practice had continued more or less till the present 
time ; that now some of the experienced, just and good men 
had been laid aside and that all the present councilors resided 
within two miles of each other, which had occasioned great 

1 N. H. Prov. Papers, Vol. Ill, p. 375. 


differences and animosities ; that the new council consisted prin- 
cipally of merchants and traders, who obstructed a revenue to 
the crown by imposts, so that unequal burdens rested upon 
farmers and laborers, many of whom had hazarded their lives 
and been reduced to desolation and poverty by the late Indian 
wars ; that the traders now in no wise assisted the lightening of 
the land tax; that the courts are now all held in Portsmouth, 
whereas they were formely held in all the four towns ; and that 
the judges are mostly of Portsmouth. They pray that the courts 
and judges may be as formerly, and that each town may be 
fairly represented in courts and in council. The reasonableness 
of this request is apparent, if anything like a representative gov- 
ernment was to be maintained ; and it is noticeable that about 
this time we find the assembly alluded to in the records as the 
House of Representatives, and the council and assembly are 
mentioned often as the upper and the lower houses, in imitation 
probably of the language of parliament.- 

We notice the disposition and tendency to concentrate 
power into one city and into the hands of a few wealthy men, 
a tendency which Nathaniel Weare of Hampton had discerned 
some years before. The farmers of New Hampshire preferred 
to govern themselves rather than to be governed from abroad 
or even by a favored few of their own province. They wanted 
representation in both branches of the government, and they 
wanted the merchants and men of wealth in Portsmouth to 
pay their fair share of the taxes. Of course a few men who had 
influence in London practically dictated who the new councilors 
should be, and when a majority of the council was made up of 
the wealthy merchants of Portsmouth, no duty on imposts could 
be expected. Laws have been called regulations which rich men 
have made for their own convenience, and this holds true in re- 
spect to property laws in all ages. Large interests have usually 
exerted undue influence over legislatures and even courts. This 
is especially true under a moanrchy. 

The members of the council at this time were Mark Hunk- 
ing, John Wentworth, Richard Gerrish, Theodore Atkinson, 
George Jaffrey, Shadrach Walton, Richard Wibird, Thomas 
Westbrook, and Samuel Penhallow, men closely related by fam- 
ily ties. 

2 N. H. Prov. Papers, Vol. Ill, p. 675. 


Governor Shute wisely refrained from a direct reply to the 
petition of the House of Representatives and sent it to the coun- 
cil. Their reply he embodied in his own. The council affected 
to feel highly affronted by the representations of the house, as 
calculated to stir up strife and animosities. They said that His 
Majesty had the right to appoint whom he would as councilors, 
no matter where in the province they might live. All the coun- 
cilors happened to be chosen from Portsmouth, because "they 
were gentlemen of the best quality and greatest ability to serve 
the government in that station." Moreover one had been chosen 
from Hampton, but he refused to serve. The traders of Ports- 
mouth were willing to pay taxes on importations, if the farmers 
would pay taxes on exports, which shows a certain sort of 
worldly wisdom or shrewdness, for the taxes on importations 
are ultimately paid by the users and consumers, not by the 
merchants and traders, while a tax on exports usually falls on 
the producers. They thought it fitting that the courts and 
judges should be of Portsmouth, since that was the metropolis 
of the province, and its wealth and population were increasing. 
The whole reply of the council is a plea for themselves as the 
superiors of those dwelling in other towns. They now had the 
reins of authority and proposed to keep them. None of the 
councilors were taxed, and this may be one reason why as many 
of the wealthy merchants of Portsmouth as possible wanted to 
be members of the council.^ 

About this time the council and house of representatives 
agreed to issue ten thousand pounds of paper money, on loan, 
for twenty-three years, at five per cent, on land security. The 
council afterward sought to raise the amount to fifteen thous- 
and pounds, to which the lower house objected. The latter 
heeded not the call of the governor to a joint meeting for con- 
sultation and therefore he dissolved the assembly. The new 
assembly consented to the issuing of fifteen thousand pounds 
but the term was made eleven years and the rate of interest was 
ten per cent. Why the rate of interest was doubled does not 
appear. Perhaps it was found that on the offered security loans 
could not be obtained at less expense. 

George Vaughan claimed that more power belonged to the 

3 N. H. Prov. Papers, Vol. IIL pp. 677-679. 


office of lieutenant governor than others were willing to allow. 
Governor Shute was in New Hampshire only a few weeks in 
the year. During the rest of the time Vaughan asserted that he 
himself had all the powers of governor of the province and re- 
fused even to obey the orders of Governor Shute, sent to him 
from Boston. The council could not support the pretensions of 
their townsman. Especially Samuel Penhallow by his opposi- 
tion incurred the ire of the lieutenant governor. This led to the 
suspension of Penhallow and the dissolution of the assembly. 
In vigorous and petulant language Vaughan thus addressed him- 
self to the council : 

As I am honored of the King, I will do my utmost to support it, and 
not lett his Commission be vilifyed at the rate some will have it ; To have 
a due defference paid to it is what the King requires and expects, especially 
from his Ministers; and to have them studious of lessening the authority 
therein granted is an aggravated fault, and I cannot but wonder at the 
arrogancy and pride of those who do not consider I am a superiour match, 
as being armed with power from my prince, who doth execution at the utter- 
ance of a word ; and I hope none will be so sturdy as to dispute it. If I soar 
too high, the fall won't crush them : if they run too fast, their repentance 
may be timely. What I have to say to you, Mr. Penhallow, is in gross, & is, 
That your busynes for a long time has been to sow discord in the Common- 
wealth, and 3'our endeavors to propagate confusion and diference in each town 
within the Government, which your avowed principles oblidge you to sodder 
as much as in you lies, the affections of majestrates & people thereby to 
divert all things which naturally produce dissention, tumults and feuds : 
the p'ticulars I have and shall transmitt to my principal Lord, the King, in 
whose name & by virtue of whose power I suspend you, Samuel Penhallow, 
from sitting, voteing, or assisting at the Council board, till his Majesty's 
pleasure shall be known.* 

A few days later Governor Shute appeared on the scene and 
undid the work of Vaughan. He restored the assembly and 
suspended Vaughan as lieutenant governor. In a speech to the 
assembly he showed the unreasonableness of Vaughan's preten- 
sions and the discords that would ensue therefrom. The council 
sustained the governor in restoring Penhallow to his seat as 
a member thereof. All the members of the house sided with 
Governor Shute, except those from Hampton, who refused to 
sit as representatives until newly and duly elected. The differ- 
ence was one of interpretation of the king's commission to the 

4 N. H. Prov. Papers, Vol. Ill, p. 703. 


lieutenant governor, since one clause therein seemed to conflict 
with another clause. He was instructed "to observe such orders 
as he should from time to time receive from the king or the gov- 
ernor in chief," and on the other hand "when the governor is out 
of the province, the lieutenant-governor is empowered to execute 
the king's commission." Vaughan had refused to execute orders 
received from Governor Shute by letter from Boston, on the 
ground that the governor was then out of the province and con- 
sequently had then no authority. The fallacy of such reasoning 
was exposed. When the affair was brought to the attention of 
Sir William Ashurst, he readily brought it about, that Vaughan 
was deposed from office and John Wentworth was appointed in 
his place, whose commission as lieutenant-governor was pub- 
lished December 7, 1717. 

John Wentworth, who for the next thirteen years was the 
leading man in the counsels and activities of the province, was 
son of Samuel and Mary (Benning) Wentworth, grandson of 
Elder William Wentworth, one of the first settlers of Exeter and 
Dover. He was born at Portsmouth, January 16, 1670, and first 
gave prominence to the Wentworth name in New Hampshire, 
which was further increased by worthy descendants. In early 
life he was a sea captain and engaged in mercantile pursuits. He 
was appointed one of the councilors in 171 1 and served as 
justice of the court of common pleas from 1713 to 1718. After 
the departure of Governor Shute to London in 1723 he had till 
1728 full authority as acting governor and commander in chief 
of New Hampshire, and he served the province well and satis- 
factorily. Especially he interested himself in the defense of 
the province against the Indians, establishing and visiting fre- 
quently sentinel posts on the frontier. His services to London- 
derry were acknoweldged by that town in the repeated voting 
of presents, for then governors had no stated salary and gratu- 
ities from council or towns was the proper way of acknowledging 
services rendered. A contemporary friend, quoted by Belknap, 
thus wrote concerning Wentworth's character : "He was a gen- 
tleman of good natural abilities, much improved by conversation ; 
remarkably civil and kind to strangers ; respectful to the min- 
isters of the gospel ; a lover of good men of all denominations ; 
compassionate and bountiful to the poor; courteous and affable 
to all ; having a constant regard to duties of divine worship, in 


private and public, and paying due deference to the sacred in- 
stitutions of Christ." 

The chief article of export and the natural source of the 
wealth of the province was lumber. Especially its white pines, 
as well as those of the neighboring province of Maine, were 
valued as masts for the royal navy, and at an early date such 
pines, twenty-four inches in diameter, were marked with the 
sign of a broad arrow by a forester appointed by the king for 
that purpose. The penalty was heavy for felling such a tree 
without consent of the forester, a custom to which this entire 
country needs to return, if lands as well as forests are to be 
conserved. Some pines were then five feet in diameter, indicat- 
ing a growth of two hundred and fifty years. Under every ad- 
ministration complaints were made of the waste of trees and 
counter complaints of unnecessary interference of the forester. 
It was found that natives of the province, who were familiar 
with the forests, took better care of them than officers sent over 
from England. It was better to cut into lumber trees that were 
more than two feet in diameter than to let them rot on the 
stump. So the settlers argued and the surveyors were often 
tricked and disobeyed. The noble pines have well nigh disap- 
peared, and lumbermen now can scarcely wait forty years, not 
to say two hundred and fifty, for the growth of coveted lumber. 

Pitch-pine trees, unfit for masts, were utilized for the pro- 
duction of tar and turpentine. To prevent a monopoly of this 
trade on the part of a company of merchants many thousand 
trees were destroyed by unknown persons. The government 
fixed a price of twenty shillings for a barrel of tar, and this was 
received in place of taxes. This led the owners to tax and over- 
tax the trees by too many incisions. Thus the profitable trees 
were gradually destroyed, and the industry came to an end. 

EfTort was made to foster the growth of hemp, and the 
price fixed by government was one shilling per pound. The 
industry did not take wide and firm root. The people of Lon- 
donderry, after the settlement of that town, cultivated the 
growth of flax, and their manufactured linens were famed for 
their excellence. Indeed the flax-wheel and the larger spinning 
wheel were to be found in almost every household till within 
recent years. The farmers raised about all they had to eat and 
wear. They sold some live-stock and ship-timber and thus were 


enabled to buy a few household utensils, as well as some West 
India rum and molasses. Feather-beds, comforters and sheets 
were all home-made, and some rough chairs and tables made up 
the furniture of the homes of the farmers. In the houses of the 
wealthy merchants of Portsmouth might occasionally be found 
a Chippendale or a Heppelwhite from London, now so highly 
prized as antiques. 

Belknap says that "great quantities of iron ore were found 
in many places." Things are great or small by comparison. 
Such immense mines of iron ore have been found elsewhere, 
that the old sources of supply in New England are now a neglig- 
ible quantity. Then bog iron was searched for and carefully 
stored. There was a penalty of ten pounds per ton for transport- 
ing it out of the province. It was proposed to erect a foundry 
on Lamprey river, and to encourage this industry the "Two-Mile 
Streak" was granted above the headline of Dover. This grant 
was based upon a promise made by the general court of Massa- 
chusetts to Portsmouth in the year 1672, to grant land for a vil- 
lage wherever it might be desired. This strip of land two miles 
wide and six long afterward formed a part of the town of Harr- 
ington. The projected iron works do not seem to have been 
long continued. 

Another industry encouraged was the raising of sheep, and 
for this purpose an act was passed exempting them from taxa- 
tion for seven years. To protect them there was a large bounty 
paid for the head of a wolf, amounting to four or five pounds. 
In the year 1737 two hundred pounds appear in the treasurer's 
accounts for such bounties. 

In 1718 a committee of the legislature decided that a gal- 
lows should be erected in the training field of Portsmouth, and 
that punishments other than by execution should be at the usual 
place near the gaol. Here must have been the whipping-post 
and the stocks, where criminals were exposed to public derision. 
Executions by hanging were until a recent date in places where 
the multitude of sightseers might glut their heartless curiosity. 
It has taken many generations of christian culture to make the 
spectacle of suffering repulsive rather than enjoyable. We are 
now civilized enough to do away with flogging a human being 
as a legal penalty, and we no longer take delight in seeing one 
hangred or electrocuted. 


During the administration of Lieut-Governor Wentworth an 
attempt was made to establish the line between New Hampshire 
and Massachusetts. Some residents near the southern bound- 
ary were taxed in both provinces, and it was a matter of dispute 
where they ought to be rated. The agent of New Hampshire at 
London was Henry Newman, who repeatedly made efforts to 
gain the attention of authorities there and have this question 
of long standing finally settled. Commissioners were appointed 
by New Hampshire and also by Massachusetts to adjust their 
respective claims. They met at Newbury but effected nothing. 
New Hampshire contended that the line should begin at a point 
three miles north of the mouth of the Merrimack river at high 
water mark and run due west as far as the province of Massa- 
chusetts extended. To this interpretation Massachusetts ob- 
jected, and the running of the line was postponed for a score of 
years. The boundary between New Hampshire and Maine also 
remained uncertain, the dispute being whether the line from the 
head waters of the Newichawannock river should run two or 
more points westward of north. 

In 1718 events occurred which led to the settlement of about 
one thousand emigrants from the northern part of Ireland in 
New Hampshire. About the year 1612 a large colony of Scotch- 
men from Argyleshire crossed the channel that is only eighteen 
miles broad in its narrowest place and mingled with another 
colony of mechanics that came from London. These latter gave 
to Derry the name Londonderry, place made famous by its re- 
sistance to the siege of 1689, when its inhabitants came so near 
to starvation that a rat was sold for a shilling. Some who took 
part in that siege settled in Londonderry, New Hampshire, and 
were forever exempted from taxation because of heroic conduct 
and sacrifice for others. A state of guerilla warfare had existed 
in Ireland for a long time between Protestants and Roman Cath- 
olics. Later the English government required that these Pres- 
byterians from Scotland should conform to the rites and usages 
of the Anglican Church, which they could not conscientiously do. 
Therefore many resolved on emigration, led by the reports of 
one Holmes, son of a minister who had visited New England. 
This minister, with three others, James McGregor, William 
Cornwell and William Boyd, gathered the bolder persons of their 
flocks in Londonderry, Coleraine, Antrim, Kilrea and the valley 


of the Bann, and on the fourth day of August, 1718, five ship- 
loads of Scotch-English, miscalled Irish, arrived in Boston. 
They strongly resented being called Irish, since they had noth- 
ing to do with the Irish in religion or blood relationship. The 
infusion of English blood came from London and from inter- 
marriages earlier in the lowlands of Scotland. The same motives 
sent them across the Atlantic that drove the Pilgrims first to 
Holland and then to Plymouth. Both bands of emigrants want- 
ed freedom to worship God in their own way, or, as is often said, 
according to the dictates of conscience, but conscience never 
dictates what is right or wrong, free or false. That has to be 
learned by means of an enlightened reason. But Scotch Pres- 
byterians had learned through several generations to believe 
certain doctrines and to worship in certain ways, and there was 
no good reason why they should not be allowed to continue 
therein. So they felt and this made them willing to leave the 
beautiful and fruitful vales of northern Ireland for the poorer 
soil and wooded wilderness of New Hampshire. 

One ship load at least went to Casco Bay and spent a winter 
in the harbor of Falmouth, now Portland, not finding a satis- 
factory place wherein to settle and being too poor to live in 
houses. So poor were they that a petition was sent to the gen- 
eral court of IVIassachusetts for their relief, and a hundred 
bushels of Indian corn were granted to them. A few of their 
families settled in Brunswick, the northern part of Bath, Cape 
Elizabeth, now South Portland, and other towns of IVIaine. 
Some went to Worcester, Massachusetts, where they did not 
meet with a favorable reception and soon dispersed to neighbor- 
ing towns. Some stayed in Boston, where they founded the first 
Presbj^terian church, of which the Rev. John Muirhead was 
minister. Sixteen families, in the spring of 1719, having heard 
that a region bordering on Haverhill, Massachusetts, was good 
land and from the abundance of its chestnuts and walnuts was 
called Nutfield, determined to settle there. They arrived April 
II, 1 719. The Rev. James McGregor, who had spent the winter 
in teaching school in Dracut, Massachusetts, was chosen as their 
minister. The first sermon was preached to them under a 
spreading oak tree the evening after their arrival at West-Run- 
ning Brook. Others of their countrymen soon joined them, and 
at the first partaking of the Lord's Supper two ministers and 
sixty-five communicants were present. 


The names of the first sixteen families that settled in Nut- 
field, soon changed to Londonderry, are worthy of preservation. 
They were those of Randal Alexander, Samuel Allison, Allen 
Anderson, James Anderson, John Barnet, Archibald Clendenin, 
James Clark, James Gregg, John Mitchell, John Morrison, James 
McKeen, James Nesmith, Thomas Steele, James Sterrett, John 
Stuart and Robert Weir. The address to Governor Shute, asking 
for a grant of land, had been signed by three hundred and twenty 
persons. Nine of them were ministers and three were graduates 
of the University at Edinburgh. These Scotch settlers are said 
to have first introduced to America the culture of the Irish po- 
tato, first planted in the garden of Nathaniel Walker at Andover, 
Massachusetts. They also brought with them their spinning 
wheels, turned by the foot. No company of settlers in New 
England can be found whose descendants have numbered more 
men of prominence in civil, military and educational affairs. It 
is enough here to mention Generals Stark and Reid of the Rev- 
olutionary Army, Governors Bell, Dinsmoor and Morrison, and 
James McKeen, first president of Bowdoin college. 

The colony at Londonderry had difficulty in securing a safe 
title to their lands. The boundary line proposed by New Hamp- 
shire would leave the southern part of the township in Massa- 
chusetts. So both states refused to grant a charter though the 
lieutenant governor of New Hampshire gave them some recog- 
nition in appointing one of their number a justice of the peace and 
another deputy sheriff. A deed of a tract ten miles square was 
obtained from Colonel John Wheelwright of Wells, Maine, sup- 
posing then that the so called Wheelwright deed of 1629 was 
genuine. They were disturbed from time to time by people who 
claimed lands by virtue of a deed given twenty years before by 
an Indian sagamore, named John, and raiders from Haverhill 
tried to break up the settlement, but they persevered in good 
behavior and clearing of the lands till a charter was granted by 
New Hampshire, June 21, 1722.^ 

Londonderry remained the name of only the western part 
of the town, Windham, the southern part, having been set off 
and incorporated 12th February, 1741/2, and Derry, the north- 
eastern part, in 1827. These and adjacent towns have felt the 

5 N. H. Prov. Papers, Vol. IV, p. 2. 


strong and uplifting influences of the Scotch character and the 
Presbyterian religion, the denomination still having several 
churches in the valley of the Merrimack, vs^hile the scattered 
Presbyterians in Maine soon melted into the Congregational 

The Society for the Settling of the Chestnut Country held 
a meeting in that country October 5, 1719. That society vv^as 
composed of people from Hampton mainly and it had a few 
members from Portsmouth, w^ho became proprietors in the tovv^n 
of Chester, w^hich w^as incorporated May 8, 1722. Some settlers 
came from Bradford, Massachusetts, in 1726. Previously the 
region had been called Cheshire. Its southern boundary was 
Londonderry. Five hundred acres were set apart for the gov- 
ernor and as many more for the lieutenant governor of the 
province. These were the perquisites of office in several towns. 
In 1 75 1 the southwestern part of Chester with a portion of Lon- 
donderry was incorporated as Derryfield, and the name was 
changed to Manchester in 1810. The northwestern part of Ches- 
ter, called Freetown, became Raymond in 1765. Hooksett was 
formed in 1822 from a part of old Chester and portions of Bow 
and Dunbarton. Auburn, on the eastern border of Manchester 
was incorporated in 1845. Candia, that part of Chester which 
had been called Charmingfare, became a separate parish in 1762 
and an incorporated town in 1763. 

Nottingham, a town ten miles square, northwestward from 
Exeter, was incorporated May 10, 1722, from which Deerfield 
was set off in 1766 and Northwood in 1773. It was settled by 
colonists from the older settlements of New Hampshire and 
some from Massachusetts. 

Barrington on the northwest boundary of Dover was incorp- 
orated May 10, 1722. It included the "two mile streak" and was 
thirteen miles long by six and a half miles wide. The westerly 
part was set off as Strafford 17 June 1820. 

Rochester was incorporated as a town the same day as Not- 
tingham and Barrington. It is north of old Dover and along 
the Salmon Falls river. The earliest settlers were principally 
descendants of the first settlers of Dover, Newington and Ports- 
mouth. The first settler was Captain Timothy Roberts in 1728. 
The town had one hundred families in 1737 and Rev. Amos 
Main was their minister. Farmington was set off and incorpor- 
ated in 1797 and Milton in 1802. 


The council granted, May 11, 1722, to the children of Samuel 
Allen deceased and to their heirs a tract of land four miles 
square adjoining to Chester side line and to Nottingham head 
line, on condition that they settle fifteen families there within 
five years, if not delayed by Indian wars. There was a petition 
concerning this land in 1737. A part of it was incorporated with 
Pembroke in 1759, and Allenstown was not made an incorporated 
town till July 2, 1831, although settlers were there before 1748, 
among them being John Walcutt, Andrew Smith, Daniel Evans, 
and Robert Buntin. 

Some minor events during the administration of John Went- 
worth have historic interest. The council and house of repre- 
sentatives were dignified bodies, though composed of but few 
members. There is an order on record requiring each member 
to wear his sword while sitting in discharge of his public duties. 
The governor had power to summon the speaker and members 
of the house whenever he saw fit without informing them in 
advance of the object he had in view. Once this was demanded, 
but the governor refused to gratify their curiosity. When Na- 
thaniel Weare of Hampton was elected speaker, Lieutenant 
Governor Wentworth refused to confirm the election. The rep- 
resentatives questioned his authority to do so, and he sent down 
his commission, containing, as he thought, the warrant for his 
action. The representatives were minded to give it another in- 
terpretation, calling attention of the governor to the historic fact, 
that the famous bishop Burnet had pointed out that "it was a 
settled point in the House of Commons in the days of King 
Charles the Second that the house had an undoubted right of 
choosing their speaker, and that the presenting him to the king 
was only matter of course and not for approbation, which set- 
tlement we can not learn has ever been questioned by any 
king or queen of Great Britain since." To avoid friction Mr. 
Weare requested the house to release him from the burden of 
filling the speaker's chair, and Andrew Wiggin of Stratham was 
chosen in his stead.^ In 1727 it was voted in the house of repre- 
sentatives that the lieutenant governor should be allowed twelve 
shillings per day, each councilor eight shillings, and each mem- 
ber of the house six shillings per day while in session. The 

6 N. H. Prov. Papers, IV. 486, 488. 


difference in pay denotes respect for rank in office rather than 
compensation for relative abilities and services. 

The opposition, or lack of harmony, between the council and 
the assembly is manifest from time to time. The former repre- 
sented royal authority and corresponded to the house of lords 
in England ; the latter represented the people and corresponded 
to the house of commons. The people of New Hampshire, led 
by Nathaniel Weare, then speaker of the house, were getting 
tired of vexatious delays and fruitless expenses in settling the 
province lines, in securing stores of war, and in obtaining jus- 
tice. Therefore the representatives passed the following resolve, 
January 10, 1727/8, which was highly displeasing to the council 
and probably led to the above mentioned negativing of the elec- 
tion of Weare as speaker: 

Whereas the Court sometimes called a Court of Appeals and sometimes 
the Court of Chancery assumes an arbitrary power without foundation or 
precedent, and whose proceedings are Neither by Juries nor any Known Rules 
and Laws, which renders the Estates of his Majesty's good Subjects within 
this Province most precarious and their Circumstances most Deplorable, 
which has occasioned a Generall Cry for Reliefe under so heavey a Burthen 
& whereas his honor the Lieut.-Governor has Signified to us upon application 
Made to the Honorable Board That his Instructions forbids the Disolving any 
Court already Erected & therefore that wee May Expect Noe remedy from 
him and whereas your Province has been at a very Considerable & fruitless 
Expense for Settling the Province lines and for obtaining Stores of Warr, 
and the assembly frequently amused from time to time & yeare to yeare 
with hopes of Success & that a little Money at one time and a little Money 
at another time would accomplish the affaire, yet Notwithstanding these 
plausible Intimations & the Raised Expectations of Some the Matter for 
ought any thing we Can See is as far from a happy and favorable Issue as 
when the attempt was first Made & whereas an additionall Number of 
Councillors from the Severall parts of the Province is what people in 
Generall & this house as theire Representatives Earnestly Desier, being 
assured it Cannot faile to promote the happiness of the Province, and 
whereas Many other things beneficiall for the Government may be proposed 
and Considered and Where as the worthy Gent who was lately an agent for 
us his Commission is Terminated : Therefore voted That Some f aithfull 
Gent of Suitable Capacity and ability from hence who has the Interest of 
the Province at heart and one on Whose Integrity and uprightness wee May 
Depend be forthwith Comissionated and instructed to appeare at the Court 
of Great Britaine & Memoriall to his Majesty the Grievances before men- 
tioned & to Implore his Grace and favor in ordering the Disolving the Said 
Court or, if that may not be, then a New Regulation of It as in his Princely 
wisdom Shall Seem Right in Causing the lines to be Settled & your Stores 
Granted, the Number of Councillors increased as affore Said." 


The council declared that this was a scandalous libel and 
asked the representatives to retract their vote. A conference of 
the two houses was held. Nothing definite resulted, and the 
matter was not pressed, perhaps because a new governor was 
immediately expected.",, 

In 1726 it was voted in the house of representatives that the 
records of deeds be constantly kept at some convenient house 
at the bank (Strawberry Bank) in Portsmouth, and that the 
expense of recording deeds and conveyances should be at the 
rate of one shilling for each page of eight and twenty lines in 
each page and eight words in a line, and that six pence should 
be allowed for attestation, and no more on the penalty by law 
provided. The same year the respresentatives voted that there 
should be built a court house and a prison in the towns of 
Hampton, Exeter and Dover, and a state house at Portsmouth. 
A vote for the state house had passed the council the year before 
and the house did not then concur. 

In 1728 the house of representatives set a valuation upon 
polls and estates for the purpose of taxation. Polls were rated 
at twenty-five pounds, lands at five or six shillings per acre, each 
ox three pounds, each cow two pounds, a horse three pounds, a 
hog ten shillings, each Negro, Mulatto or Indian slave twenty 
pounds, houses throughout the province at one pound and five 
shillings each. Notice how the manisons of the rich were rated 
the same as the hovels of the poor.^ 

As early as 1724 the assemblymen began to agitate in favor 
of a triennial act, requiring that no assembly, or house of repre- 
sentatives, should continue in office longer than three years. 
This was in harmony with a law in England that a parliament 
should be chosen for three years only. The agent in London, 
Henry Newman, reported opinion there as being against the pro- 
posed act, since the law did not work well, and it was changed so 
that parliament must be chosen once in seven years. Neverthe- 
less the assembly of New Hampshire continued to favor such 
a law, and it was passed four years later. 

7 N. H. Prov. Papers, Vol. IV, p. 479. 

8 N. H. Prov. Papers, Vol. IV, p. 304. 

Chapter XII 

Chapter XII 


Why Indians Preferred the French to the English — Influence of Jesuit 
Missionaries — Trouble Begins in Eastern Maine — New Hampshire Troops 
Sent Eastward — Attack on Merrymeeting and Brunswick — Exploit of 
Captain Baker— Road Cut to Winnepiseogee — Indians Attack Dover 
again — Newmarket and Oyster River Suffer — Captives Taken at Chester 
— Five Slain at Oyster River^The Hanson Family at Dover — Destruction 
of Norridgewock — Men of Dunstable Killed and Captured — Large Bounty 
for Scalps — Exploits of Captain Lovewell's Company — Battle of Pe- 
quawket or Fryeburg — Killing of the Evans Family — Commissioners 
Sent to Montreal — Treaty of Boston and Falmouth — Insecurity of both 
Whitemen and Redmen. 

IT was during the administration of Lieutenant Governor John 
Wentworth that the fourth Indian war occurred, commonly 
called Lovewell's War. It is noticeable that the Indians of 
Maine and New Hampshire were always allies of the French 
against the English, and we do not read of depredations com- 
mitted by them upon the French settlements in the provinces. 
This has been accounted for by the fact that the English gov- 
ernment acted toward the Indian tribes as though they were 
subjects of the King of England and so rebels in time of war, 
while the French acknowledged the independence of the tribes. 
Moreover, the French sent Jesuit missionaries among them, who 
lived according to Indian customs, taught the elements of the 
christian religion, as well as some of the helpful arts of civili- 
zation. David Livingstone found this method of doing mission- 
ary work very effective in the heart of Africa and so opened up 
a great dominion to the British nation. The Indians were de- 
voted to their missionaries and valued highly their religious 
teachings. One of the most noted of such missionaries was 
Sebastian Rasle, who lived among the Norridgewocks many 
years, taught them to build a chapel, and endeared himself to 
them by his life of service and sacrifice. Much has been written 
both for and against him. The settlers in Maine at his time 
hated him for stirring up the tribes against them and therefore 



may have misrepresented him. Naturally his sympathies were 
with the French in their struggles for territory in America, and 
he can not be blamed for assisting his countrymen and his 
beloved Indians in their wars with the English, just as the 
English missionaries in Africa are now taking sides against the 
German colonists there and accepting all the assistance they 
can get from the African tribes. Rasle was an able, highly edu- 
cated and devoted priest, and his work among the Indians should 
be judged from the French point of view. While England and 
France were at war, treaties with the Indians in Maine and New 
Hampshire could not go long unbroken. In every new treaty 
the compact was written in English and interpreted to the In- 
dians, who assented to all that was asked of them, probably in 
many cases not knowing well the meaning of the terms em- 
ployed. It is certain that such treaties never stood for a moment 
in their way, whenever they wished to dig up the tomahawk. 
Such promises were less than scraps of paper to them. They 
could not understand how their forefathers could have sold be- 
yond recall large tracts of land, so that the tribes could no longer 
use them. They doubtless held that none of preceding genera- 
tions had a right to so dispose of lands that successors would 
certainly need, and they had no wish nor ability to change their 
mode of living. As tribes they felt that they had an inalienable 
right to the soil and rivers for planting corn, hunting and fishing, 
a right which is now acknowledged in setting aside for their 
use large reservations, which the greedy whiteman can not too 
easily lay his rapacious hand upon. Their socialism was primi- 
tive and faulty, but grounded in natural rights. They needed 
no education nor religion to make them object to being driven 
off the earth by people who wanted their lands. What right 
had the king of England to claim all their lands as his own and 
give the same by a few signs on a piece of paper to patentees? 
Who made these Indians subjects of Great Britain? It is the 
old question, whether might makes right, or right makes might, 
and it has not yet been fought out to a finish. The ideal has 
often yielded to the practical,— yielded for a little time. 

The English traders on the frontiers seem to have made no 
lasting friendships with the Indians. They were there to get 
rich, and the Indians found it out. At the first outbreak of war 
all trading houses, if not well garrisoned, were sacked and 


burned ; then private houses were attacked and left in smoulder- 
ing ruins ; and lastly forts were assailed by large numbers of 
Indians led by French. The eastern settlements in Maine were 
devastated again and again, no habitation being left for many 

The eastern Indians were troublesome for three years before 
the outbreak of the war, killing cattle, burning stacks of hay, 
robbing and insulting English settlers. The garrisons were rein- 
forced and Colonel Shadrach Walton of Portsmouth had com- 
mand of the forces, sending out scouting parties from time to 
time. The Indians sought the removal of all the English from 
the eastern lands of Maine but were afraid to make open attacks 
without the aid of the French. The governor of Canada sup- 
plied them with arms and kept them in a state of discontent. 
Many of the inhabitants withdrew to places of safety or left 
the province. Governor Shute appointed a congress at Arrow- 
sic in 1 71 7, when presents were exchanged and the sachems re- 
newed a former treaty and assented to deeds of sale made by 
former chiefs. The late offenses were due, they said, to the 
inexperience of their young men. In the year 1718 John Kennis- 
ton and John Fox of Newington were arrested and taken to 
prison on suspicion of having killed an eastern Indian, named 
Hancock. Messengers were sent to Winter Harbor, in Saco, to 
treat with the Indians about this affair and to offer them com- 
pensation in money. In a letter from Richard Waldron to John 
Giles and Samuel Jordan, who acted as interpreters for New 
Hampshire, it was suggested that thirty pounds would be a 
fair sum to offer. The entire expense of settling this difficulty 
to the satisfaction of the Indians was over ninety-one pounds. 
Thus proper efforts were made to maintain peace.^ 

But in 1720 the Indians began to be more insolent and Col- 
onel Walton with two hundred soldiers under command of 
Captains Moody, Harmon, Penhallow and Wainwright, were 
sent to guard the eastern frontier in Maine. The Indians prom- 
ised to pay two hundred skins for the cattle they had killed and 
to deliver up four young men as hostages. Some of the French 
missionaries and governors held a conference with Captain Pen- 
hallow at Arrrowsic, and there the threat of the Indians was 

1 N. H. Prov. Papers, Vol. Ill, pp. 723, 742, 821. 


made known, that if the English did not remove within three 
weeks, their houses would be burned and they and their cattle 
would be killed. This only led to an increase of men in the 
garrisons, and the following winter Colonel Thomas Westbrook 
led an expedition to Norridgewock to seize Sebastian Rasle. 
He escaped, however, and only his strong box was brought back, 
which contained incriminating correspondence with the governor 
of Canada.2 

On the thirteenth of June 1722 the Indians took nine families 
at Merrymeeting Bay, in the present town of Topsham, Maine. 
Most of these were soon released. They also made an attack 
on St. George's near the present town of Thomaston, Maine. 
Belknap says that the town of Brunswick was destroyed, which 
is an exaggeration. Only a few houses were burned at New 
Meadows, and a few persons were killed, among them being two 
sons of Andrew Dunning, as they were crossing the Andros- 
coggin river just below the falls. This led to a declaration of 
war against the eastern Indians, which was published at Boston 
and Portsmouth, July 25, 1722, after a peace of ten years. 

Colonel Shadrach Walton, Colonel Thomas Westbrook and 
Captain Samuel Penhallow, all men of Portsmouth, were prom- 
inent leaders in this war, and Penhallow wrote a full account of 
it, from which the leading events are here transcribed, confining 
attention mainly to activities in New Hampshire. The follow- 
ing incident may be added. "About the year 1720 Captain 
Thomas Baker of Northampton in the county of Hampshire, in 
Massachusetts, set off with a scouting party of thirty-four men, 
passing up Connecticut river, and crossing the height of land 
to Pemigewasset river. He there discovered a party of Indians, 
whose sachem was called Walternummus, whom he attacked and 
destroyed. Baker and the sachem levelled and discharged their 
guns at each other at the same instant. The ball from the 
Indian's gun grazed Baker's left eyebrow, but did him no injury. 
The ball from Baker's gun went through the breast of the 
sachem. Immediately upon being wounded he leaped four or 
five feet high and fell instantly dead. The Indians flew to the 
river; Baker and his party pursued and destroyed every one of 

2 That strong box is now in the possession of the Maine Historical 


them. They had a wigwam on the bank of the river, which was 
nearly filled with beaver. Baker's party took as much of it as 
they could carry away, and burned the rest. Baker lost none 
of his men in this skirmish. It took place at the confluence of 
a small river with the Pemigewasset, between Plymouth and 
Campton, which has since had the name of Baker's river. "^ 

Governor Shute asked New Hampshire to contribute a quota 
of seventy men to help defend the eastern frontier in Maine, 
which the council refused to do, since New Hampshire needed 
all her men to defend her own frontier. They said that York, 
Berwick, Kittery and Wells, instead of being asked for help had 
been aided by one hundred soldiers, and these towns were no 
more exposed to assaults than were the towns of New Hamp- 
shire."* A road thirty miles long was cut through to "Winne- 
pishoky pond" by one hundred and fifty men, with the intention 
of erecting a block house, or fort, there fifty feet square with 
flankers, but after reflection on the probable expense of main- 
taining it the building of the fort was not begun. A bounty of 
one hundred pounds was offered for an Indan scalp, and the 
pay of officers and soldiers enrolled for two years was fixed, for 
a captain seven pounds per month, for a lieutenant four pounds, 
for a sergeant and clerk each fifty-eight shillings, for a corporal 
forty-five shillings, and for a sentinel forty shillings. The se- 
lectmen of each town were authorized to employ a bellman to 
go through the town by night, presumably to alarm or warn the 
inhabitants if necessary. 

The first attack of the enemy was made at Dover, whose 
inhabitants had suffered so much in previous Indian wars. There 
they killed Joseph Ham and carried three of his children into 
captivity. Soon after they killed Tristram Heard, whose grand- 
mother Elizabeth (Hull) Heard, so wonderfully escaped capture 
in 1689. Thence they went to Lamprey river, now Newmarket, 
and killed Aaron Rawlins and a daughter while they were defend- 
ing their home. Mrs. Rawlins, who was daughter of Edward Tay- 
lor, with a son and a daughter, was taken to Canada, whence 
the mother was redeemed after a few years. The son was 
brought up by and remained with the Indians. The daughter 
married a Frenchman and stayed in Canada. 

3 Farmer's & Moore's Collections, Vol. Ill, p. 100. 

4 N. H. Prov. Papers, Vol. IV, p. 53. 


In the spring of 1724 Elder James Nock of Oyster River was 
shot from his horse as he was returning- from setting his traps. 
He lived on the north shore of Great Bay, in the district called 
Lubberland. The Rev. Hugh Adams bemoans the sudden taking 
off of this worthy man and calls upon the Lord Emmanuel for 
vengeance. At Kingston Peter Colcord, Ephraim vStevens and 
two of the children of Ebenezer Stevens were taken and carried 
into captivity. Colcord made his escape after about six months. 
It was voted in the General Assembly "that Peter Colcord lately 
returned from captivity with the Indians obtained by his own 
courage and ingenuity and giving such account of the Indians 
proceedings as may be advantageous to the Government and he 
being now gone on an Expedition against the Indians That he 
be allowed and paid out of the Treasury a sum of ten pounds 
a present from this Government when he returns."^ 

On a sabbath day, May 24, 1724, the Indians lay in ambush 
and killed and scalped George Chesley at Oyster River, as he 
was returning from meeting. At the same time Elizabeth Burn- 
ham was mortally wounded and died within a few days. Tra- 
dition says they were lovers. At Chester Thomas Smith and 
John Carr were taken and went thirty miles with the Indians. 
While the latter were sleeping the captives made their escape. 
Moses Davis, who lived near Chesley's Mill at Oyster River, 
went to a brook to drink and found three Indian packs. He 
informed the soldiers and while guiding them to the place he 
and his son, Moses Jr., were killed. Two Indians were wounded 
and another was slain by the company under command of 
Captain Abraham Bennett. The Indian killed was thought to be 
a person of some distinction, and the Rev. Hugh Adams argued 
by his dress and prayerbook that he was an illegimate son of 
the Jesuit priest, Sebastian Rasle, but this is a fanciful and quite 
unwarranted conclusion. Others have supposed, with more rea- 
son, that he was a son of the Baron de Castine, who had an 
Indian woman as wife. Robert Burnham affirmed before the 
Council that the scalp he showed them was bona fide the scalp 
of an Indian slain two days before, and one hundred pounds were 
awarded therefor to Captain Francis Mathews for the company 
of soldiers. 

5N. H. Prov. Papers, Vol. IV, p. 155. 


The following narrative was written by Mr. Belknap, who, 
while living in Dover, had every opportunity to learn the exact 
facts : 

Within the town of Dover were many families of Quakers ; who scrupling 
the lawlessness of war, could not be persuaded to use any means for their 
defense; though equally exposed with their neighbors to an enemy who 
made no distinctions between them. One of these people, Ebenezer Downs, 
was taken by the Indians and was grossly insulted and abused by them, 
because he refused to dance as the other prisoners did, for the diversion 
of their savage captors. Another of them, John Hanson, who lived on the 
outside of the town, in a remote situation, could not be persuaded to remove 
to a garrison, though he had a large family of children. A party of thirteen 
Indians, called French Mohawks, had marked his house for their prey and 
lay several days in ambush, waiting for an opportunity to assault it. While 
Hanson with his oldest daughter were gone to attend the weekly meeting of 
friends, the Indians entered the house, killed and scalped two small children, 
and took his wife, with her infant of fourteen days old, her nurse, two 
daughters and a son, and after rifling the house carried them off. This 
was done so suddenly and secretly, that the first person who discovered it 
was the oldest daughter at her return from the meeting before her father. 
Seeing the two children dead at the door she gave a shriek of distress, 
which was distinctly heard by her mother, then in the hands of the enemy 
among the bushes, and by her brothers in the meadow. The people being 
alarmed went in pursuit, but the Indians cautiously avoiding all paths went 
off with their captives undiscovered. After this disaster had befallen his 
family Hanson removed the remainder of them to the house of his brother, 
who, though of the same religious persuasion, yet had a number of lusty 
sons and always kept his fire-arms in good order, for the purpose of shooting 

All these captives were sold to the French in Canada. The 
mother and three of her children were redeemed, with the nurse, 
the following spring by Mr. Hanson, who also redeemed Eb- 
enezer Downs. Hanson's oldest daughter could not be obtained. 
She married a Frenchman and never returned. Her father made 
a second attempt to bring her home, in 1727, but died at Crown 

In August of 1724 Captains Moulton and Harmon of York 
led two hundred men to Norridgewock and surprised the In- 
dians there, killing about eighty, burning their village and 
chapel and driving the rest into the forest. Sebastian Rasle 
was slain, after having lived among the Indians twenty-six years. 
Four Indians were taken alive and their English captives were 

6 Hist, of N. H., p. 205. 


liberated. The details must be left to the historian of Maine. 

Nathan Cross and Thomas Blanchard of Dunstable were 
making turpentine where now is the city of Nashua, when they 
were surprised and taken by Indians. A party of ten started 
in search of them ; they were drawn into an ambush and only 
one, Joseph Farwell, escaped. The leader of the party was 
Sergeant French. Another of the slain was Thomas Lund of 
Dunstable, the inscription on whose monument tells the story 
of his death and burial with seven more. Cross and Blanchard 
after some time secured their release by their own exertions and 
returned from Canada to Dunstable. At Kingston Jabez Cole- 
man and his son were killed while working in the field. 

The large bounty offered for Indian scalps led volunteer 
companies to go in search of them, especially after the notable 
victory at Norridgewock. Captain John Lovewell of Dunstable 
organized such a company, aided by Lieutenant Joseph Farwell, 
above mentioned. It consisted of thirty men. Their object was 
to secure scalps and thus also to protect the frontiers. North 
of lake Winnepiseogee they found a wigwam with a man and a 
boy in it. They killed and scalped the man and took the boy 
as captive to Boston, where they were duly paid for the scalp, 
and had, as Belknap says, "a handsome gratuity besides." Pen- 
hallow says that they received two shillings and sixpence per 
day, besides the scalp money. One man scalped by thirty! 
Compare this brave deed with some of the similar acts of 
Indians, and how much is there to the credit of a christian 

The next time Captain Lovewell raised a company of sev- 
enty volunteers and east of lake Winnepiseogee they came upon 
a camp of sleeping Indians, having stealthily tracked and 
watched them by day. After midnight they fell upon the ten 
sleepers around a fire. Lovewell fired the first gun and killed 
two. Then his men fired by fives, as they had been ordered, 
killing five more. The three left started from their sleep, and 
two of them were immediately killed, while the last one, 
wounded, tried to escape by crossing a frozen pond, but a dog 
seized and held him fast till he, too, was killed. Was this re- 
taliation? or were the Indians retaliating when they committed 
similar murderous and cowardly acts? Civilized warfare seems 
to be a contradiction in terms. There was then no alleviating 


Red Cross corps. This "capital exploit" netted a thousand 
pounds. The scene of it was a pond in Wakefield, called Love- 
well's pond. The brave company marched into Dover, not with 
the scalps dangling at their belts, bvit elevated on poles as proud 
trophies of war. 

A third time Captain Lovewell set forth with forty-six in 
his company. The surgeon and a sick man, with eight men as 
a guard, were left at Ossipee pond, in a rudely constructed fort. 
The rest pressed on to a pond about a mile and a half from 
Pequawket, the site of the present town of Fryeburg, Maine. 
The story of this ten hours' battle has been told too many times 
to need a repetition of its details here. Lovewell and the major- 
ity of his men were slain, including the chaplain. Rev. Jonathan 
Frye, of Andover, Massachusetts. Probably twice as many In- 
dians were killed, and this put an end to their marauding expe- 
ditions. The whitemen were drawn into an ambush and had no 
way of retreating. They had to fight and they did it well. This 
battle, or skirmish, reflected more glory upon those who par- 
ticipated in it than any that was fought in the Indian wars, 
and the honors belong about equally to the whitemen and the 
redmen. Both parties fought bravely and persistently, each re- 
solved to kill the other or die. At dark the Indians withdrew 
and next day the whitemen marched homeward, some of the 
wounded dying on the way. Lieutenant governor Wentworth 
ordered fifty soldiers, under command of Captain Jonathan Ches- 
ley of Oyster River to march to Ossipee and Pequawket, to 
relieve any wounded whom they might find."^ Belknap says that 
this company did not reach the scene of action, and that Colonel 
Tyng with a company from Dunstable went to Pequawket, found 
and buried the bodies of twelve, and carved their names on the 
trees where the battle was fought. He visited the spot in 1784, 
and the names were then plainly visible. The party from Dun- 
stable also found the graves of some Indians, among them be- 
ing that of the Indian chief Paugus. 

On the fifteenth of September, 1725, the Indians again 
sought to capture the members of the Hanson family in Dover, 
who had been redeemed from captivity. This they threatened to 
do before the Hansons left Canada. The Indians were concealed 

7 N. H. Prov. Papers, Vol. IV, p. 169. 


in a barn while two women passed by on their way to the garri- 
son. Some men were laboring in a neighboring field. At the 
first discharge of guns Benjamin Evans was killed. They 
wounded William Evans and cut his throat. John Evans was 
wounded and bled profusely. Thinking him dead the Indians 
stripped and scalped him, during which operation he feigned 
death, though conscious of all that was going on. They turned 
him over and struck him several blows on the head. After they 
had gone he staggered toward the garrison, and some friends 
meeting him in a fainting condition wrapped him in a blanket 
and carried him to a place of safety. He recovered and lived 
fifty years. The Indians got away unmolested, carrying with 
them Benjamin Evans, a lad of thirteen years. He was "re- 
deemed as usual by a charitable collection. "^ 

Meanwhile William Dudley and Samuel Thaxter, commis- 
sioners from Massachusetts, and Theodore Atkinson, represent- 
ing New Hampshire, were sent to Montreal to confer with the 
Marquis de Vaudreuil, governor of Canada, bearing the incrim- 
inating letters of the latter, which were found among the papers 
of Sebastian Rasle. The commissioners sought the restitution 
of captives and to impress the governor that he was principally 
responsible for the outbreak of hostilities, since he had encour- 
aged the Indians to make war and had supplied them with arms 
and ammunition, which facts he denied. The evidences pre- 
sented were disconcerting, since his letters were produced, and, 
moreover, an Indian stood ready to affirm that he himself had 
been supplied with arms by the governor, by means of which 
he had killed one white man and captured and sold another. The 
governor finally promised to do what he could to restore peace 
and release the captives. Sixteen were redeemed at an extrava- 
gant price. Some Indians had an interview with the commis- 
sioners, and proposed that "if the English would demolish all 
their forts and remove one mile westward of Saco river ; if they 
would rebuild their church at Norridgewock and restore to 
them their priest, they would be brothers again." It was quite 
beyond the power of the commissioners to do all these things, 
especially to bring back Sebastian Rasle from the dead. 

After the return of the commissioners to Boston prepara- 

8 Farmer's Belknap, p. 217. 


tions were made for renewing the war with vigor, and a peti- 
tion was sent to the king, complaining of the French governor 
of Canada. The governor of New York was asked to co-operate 
in subduing and seizing the Indians. One of the Indian hostages 
in Boston was allowed to visit his countrymen and he soon 
returned with a request for peace. Commissioners went to St. 
George's, and arrangements were made for a meeting in Boston 
to conclude peace. Lieutenant-Governor Wentworth, Colonel 
Shadrach Walton, Major John Oilman, John Frost Esq., and 
Mr. Theodore Atkinson represented New Hampshire in that 
treaty, and each was paid five pounds for his expenses. The 
assembly also voted that twenty-five pounds should be expended 
for presents to the Indians. Three of the eastern Indian tribes 
had not come into the agreement made at Boston, and so the 
lieutenant-governor and three members of the council and one 
member of the house, Theodore Atkinson, went to Falmouth to 
meet the representatives of these tribes. Those from the council 
were George Jafifrey, Colonel Shadrach Walton and Richard 

The treaty was concluded in the usual form, and truck- 
houses were established under the management of the govern- 
ment, for trading with the Indians. This put an end to depre- 
dations for about twenty-five years, though white men could 
not be wholly restrained from shooting a lone Indian, when 
opportunity was afforded. No court would convict a man for 
such a case of manslaughter, whatever the evidence might be. 
Those who had suffered on the frontiers were not scrupulous 
about the rights of the Indians, nor was there grief when the 
death of a former dreaded foe was reported. No treaty nor laws 
could entirely stop petty thefts by Indians. The whitemen stole 
on a larger scale by shrewd bartering, against which there was 
no civil law. 

9N. H. Prov. Papers, IV. 459. 

Chapter XIII 


Chapter XIII 



Short Rule of William Burnet— Settlement of Penacook, now Concord— 
Suncook, now Pembroke— Grants of Epsom, Chichester, Canterbury, 
Barnstead, Gilmanton and Bow— Coulraine Granted but not Settled— 
Kingswood — The Governor and His Friends Get Large Grants— Jonathan 
Belcher — David Dunbar — Political Intrigues — Retirement of Dunbar — 
Conflict between the Council and the House— Growth of the Democratic 
Spirit — First Episcopal Church — Condition of New Hampshire in 1730 
— Incorporation of Durham and Contoocook, now Boscawen. 

IN a speech to the general assembly, December 13, 1727, Lieut- 
Governor Wentworth announced that William Burnet had 
been appointed governor of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, 
and added that "He is a Gentleman of known worth and has 
justly obtained a universal regard from all that had the Honor 
to be under his Government and will make us a happy people 
when he arrives here, if we are not wanting in paying that 
respect which his Character so justly deserves."^ 

The new governor was a son of Bishop Gilbert Burnet, who 
was regarded as a friend to civil and religious liberty. He had 
been popular as governor of New York and New Jersey, a man 
of literary tastes, fond of books and free from ostentation. He 
reached Boston July 13, 1728, whither a committee was sent 
from council and house of representatives to join in his recep- 
tion. In April, 1729, Governor Burnet came to Portsmouth and 
addressed the general assembly. He seems to have remained 
about a month. A house was provided for his entertainment. 
The government of Massachusetts could not be persuaded to 
grant him a regular salary, and many of the representatives of 
New Hampshire were unwilling to do so, although Governor 
Joseph Dudley enjoyed this benefit. There seems to have been 
stubborn opposition in both colonies to taxing themselves to 
pay the salary of officials whom they had not chosen. Popular 

1 N. H. Prov. Papers, IV. 261. 



governors received presents from time to time, and unpopular 
ones little more than insults and neglect. Burnet had been in- 
structed to insist upon a salary, and after some debate he was 
voted two hundred pounds sterling, or six hundred pounds in 
bills of credit, out of which sum he was to pay his own traveling 
expenses and also one-third of the two hundred pounds to his 
lieutenant-governor. For this latter consideration Wentworth 
renounced all claim to other salary and presents. Governor 
Burnet made no lasting impression upon the province, by reason 
of his death soon after. He died September 7, 1729, at Cam- 
bridge, Massachusetts, in consequence of the oversetting of his 
carriage upon a causeway, when the tide was high, occasioning 
a violent cold and fever. 

The controversy was still going on as to who had jurisdic- 
tion in the valley of the Merrimack, and Massachusetts was 
fastening her clutches upon choice tracts of land therein. Old 
Dunstable was not enough ; thirty miles up the river were the 
planting grounds of the Penacook Indians, known to traders 
for more than half a century. Indeed it is said to have been 
visited by white men as early as 1638, and Major Richard Wai- 
derne and Peter Coffin of Dover had a trading house here in 
1668. The General Court of Massachusetts granted this region, 
in 1659, to twenty-two petitioners of Dover and Newbury, but 
the conditions seem to have been unfulfilled. In 1663 the same 
court granted to the inhabitants of Salem, Massachusetts, a 
plantation six miles square at Penacook. This grant also was 
forfeited. In 1725 about one hundred and twenty petitioners 
from Essex county, Massachusetts, principally from Haverhill, 
Bradford, Andover, Newbury and Ipswich, obtained a grant of 
a tract seven miles square. Their petition states that some 
Irish people from Nutfield were likely to get a grant of this 
region from the government of New Hampshire, alluding to the 
Scotch settlers in Londonderry who were pushing northward. 
The settlement was begun the following year, and in 172;^ 
Ebenezer Eastman was the first to bring his family to Penacook. 
While about forty men were clearing the lands and laying out 
lots, a committee from the government of New Hampshire ap- 
peared on the scene and entered protest. This committee con- 
sisted of Nathaniel Weare, Richard Waldron Jr., and Theodore 


Atkinson. There was no stay of proceedings. The Massachu- 
setts people kept on felling trees, laying out lots and killing 
rattlesnakes. This last industry was encouraged by the offer 
of three pence per tail as town's bounty. In 1726 a sufficient 
cart-way was cut through from Haverhill to Penacook, by way 
of Chester, and in the same year the proprietors voted to build 
a block house forty feet in length and twenty-five feet wide. 
This building served many years for fort, meeting-house, school- 
house and town-house. The site is marked by a properly in- 
scribed block of granite, near the corner of Chapel and Main 
streets, in Concord. 

Suncook was granted by Massachusetts, in 1727, to the sur- 
vivors of Captain John Lovewell's company and the heirs of 
the deceased. The Indian name was changed to Pembroke, 
when that town was incorporated, November i, 1759. Other 
grants to the number of eight were made by Massachusetts to 
those who had served in the Narragansett war and in the expe- 
dition against Canada. The object was not so much to pension 
old soldiers as to secure a claim upon disputed lands. 

Meanwhile the government of New Hampshire was alert. 
On the eighteenth and twentieth of May, 1727, Lieutenant- 
Governor Wentworth, in the name of the king, signed grants of 
the townships of Epsom, Chichester, Canterbury, Barnstead, 
Gilmanton, and Bow. The first five were clearly within the 
territory of New Hampshire, while Bow, according to the grant, 
comprised the greater part of the lands already granted by 
Massachusetts to the settlers at Penacook and Suncook. This 
made trouble for many years. The conditions of these grants 
were, that seventy settlers should clear lands within a few 
years, that a meeting house should be built, that lots should 
be reserved for a parsonage, a school and the minister, etc. 

Epsom was a tract six miles in length by four and a half 
miles wide, adjoining Nottingham, now Deerfield and Northfield, 
on the northwest. It was named from a town in Surry, Eng- 
land, and was granted to Theodore Atkinson, John Frost, and 
others of New Castle, Rye and Greenland. The early meetings of 
the proprietors were held at New Castle and Portsmouth. As 
usual in the new grants few of the original proprietors settled 
here. The land was given to them to speculate with. They laid 
out some money in building roads and meeting houses and then 


sold their lots to the best purchasers. The first settlers in 
Epsom were Charles McCoy from Londonderry, William Blaze, 
a Frenchman, Andrew McClary and Samuel Blake. 

Chichester was granted to Nathaniel Gookin and others, 
many of whom were of Hampton. It adjoins Epsom, on the 
northwest. The northeastern portion of it was incorporated as 
the town of Pittsfield, March 27, 1782. 

Canterbury, adjoining Chichester on the northwest, was 
granted to inhabitants of Oyster River, now Durham, and some 
of them settled here. The annual quit rent was one pint of 
Indian corn, if demanded. The southeast part of Canterbury 
was incorporated as the town of Loudon, in 1773, probably 
named for John Campbell, Earl of Loudoun, at one time com- 
mander of the British forces in America. The northern part of 
Canterbury became the town of Northfield in June, 1780. 

In the grant of Barnstead to the Rev. Joseph Adams and 
many others of Newington it is said that the town was to "begin 
on the head of the town of Barrington, on the southwest side 
of the town of Coulraine and running by the said town of Coul- 
raine eight miles." Many of the first settlers of Barnstead were 
from Durham. Few settlements were made before 1767. Here 
mention is made of a town of Coulraine. This was chartered 
December 8, 1726, and granted chiefly to the inhabitants of 
Londonderry, as the names of the grantees indicate, so that 
that town might have its share with the rest in the distribution 
of unoccupied land. Coulraine began at the northeasterly cor- 
ner of Rochester, at or near Salmon Falls river, and ran twelve 
miles on Rochester head line, and thence northwest half a point 
northerly ten miles, making a township twelve miles by ten. 
Each proprietor was to build a dwelling house within two years 
or forfeit his claim. The annual quit rent was ten pounds of 
hemp and a barrel of tar. The conditions of the grant were not 
fulfilled, and October 20, 1737, Governor Belcher signed a grant 
"of the Town Corporate of Kingswood" to sixty persons of 
Portsmouth, beginning at the southeasterly corner of Barnstead 
and from thence to run upon the same course as Barnstead's 
easterly side line, to Winnipiseogee Pond, thence by a right 
angle till it came to the boundary line of what formerly was 
the Province of Maine, thence to northeasterly corner of Roch- 


ester, and thence by Rochester and Barrington head lines to the 
starting point. This charter, too, lapsed, and out of its terri- 
tory were formed New Durham, which was granted to Ebenezer 
Smith and others in 1749 and incorporated January 15, 1796, 
and Middleton, which was settled by Thomas Morgan and 
others a little before the Revolution and was incorporated March 
4, 1778. Brookfield was set off from Middleton in 1794. Wake- 
field, originally called East Town, was incorporated August 30, 
1774. Its southern part belonged to the lapsed grant of Kings- 
wood. Alton, once called New Durham Gore, was settled by 
Jacob Chamberlain and others in 1770 and was incorporated 
January 15, 1796. Its southern part belonged to the ancient 
Coulraine. (For charter of Coulraine see N. H. Prov. Deeds, 
XV. 186-190.) 

Gilmanton was granted, May 20, 1727, to twenty-four per- 
sons by the name of Oilman and one hundred and fifty-three 
others, chiefly from Exeter and Stratham, as compensation for 
services rendered in defense of the country. To these grantees 
were added sundry others, making the number up to two hun- 
dred and fifteen proprietors. The conditions of settlement were 
not fulfilled, and this township was claimed by the Masonian 
proprietors and regranted by them, June 30, 1752. Governor's 
Island was annexed December 30, 1799. Gilford was set off and 
incorporated June 16, 1812, and Upper Gilmanton was set off and 
incorporated June 28, 1859, its name being changed to Belmont 
in 1869. 

It is noticeable that among the grantees of these new towns, 
Coulraine, Epsom, Chichester, Canterbury, Barnstead, Gilman- 
ton and Bow, appear the names of Governor Shute and Lieuten- 
ant Governor Wentworth, each of whom had four hundred acres 
in Coulraine and five hundred acres in each of the other towns. 
Also the members of the governor's council came in for a share 
in each town, as well as the leading officials and merchants of 
Portsmouth and New Castle. Four sons of Wentworth were 
remembered in these grants, as well as his sons-in-law, Theodore 
Atkinson and Archibald McPhaedris, and his brother-in-law, 
Mark Hunking. Others repeatedly named in grants of towns 
were John Frost and son Andrew, Jotham Odiorne and son 
Jotham, Richard Waldron and son Richard, Shadrach Walton 


and son Benjamin, George Jaffrey and son George. The wealthy 
families of Portsmouth needed more land for their sons. Went- 
worth must have received, or taken, over three thousand acres 
of land, and the members of his family as much more. It is easy 
for a governor to get land, when his signature to the charter or 
grant is necessary. 

The grant of Bow was to Jonathan Wiggin and others of 
Stratham and Exeter, including also members of the governor's 
council and some of his friends. It began on "the southwest side 
of the town of Chichester, running nine miles by Chichester and 
Canterbury, and carrying that breadth of nine miles from each 
of the aforesaid towns, southwest, until the full complement of 
eighty-one square miles are fully made up." This grant was 
intentionally so made as to cover most of the land already 
granted in the townships of Penacook and Suncook by Massa- 
chusetts, each province hoping that the rival claims would be 
decided finally in its own favor. Therefore Massachusetts kept 
on her way and in 1733 incorporated Penacook as the town of 
Rumford, with no ascertainable reason for the new name. The 
Rev. Timothy Walker became the first settled minister in 1730, 
at a salary of one hundred pounds per annum. He built the 
first two-story framed house, which the town surrounded with a 
palisade and used as a garrison, or place of refuge in time of 
Indian depredations. Henry Rolfe, who had lately graduated at 
Harvard college, was the first town clerk and first deputy to the 
general court of Massachusetts in 1740. The controversy with 
the town of Bow will be noticed in a later chapter. 

At the time of the death of Governor Burnet there was in 
England an agent of Massachusetts, named Jonathan Belcher. 
He was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts, January 8, 1682, son 
of Hon. Andrew Belcher, one of the provincial council, and 
grandson of Andrew Belcher who lived in Cambridge in 1646. 
Jonathan Belcher was graduated at Harvard college in 1699 and 
spent six years in Europe, visiting twice the court of Hanover, 
where he received from the princess Sophia a golden medal. He 
became a wealthy merchant and member of the provincial coun- 
cil of Massachusetts. Belknap describes him as "graceful in his 
person, elegant and polite in his manners ; of a lofty and aspiring 
disposition ; a steady, generous friend ; a vindictive, but not 



implacable enemy. Frank and sincere, he was extremely liberal 
in his censures, both in conversation and letters. Having a high 
sense of the dignity of his commission, he determined to support 
it, even at the expense of his private fortune; the emoluments 
of office in both provinces being inadequate to the style in which 
he chose to live." It may be added that perusal of his letters 
does not impress the reader with a sense of the governor's innate 
dignity, and many expressions are vulgar and belittling. While 
agent of Massachusetts in London he was understood to be a 
champion of the rights of the people and opposed to a fixed 
salary for the governor, but after his own appointment to that 
office he was very strenuous in insisting upon a fixed salary for 
himself, according to advice and requirement of the king in 
council. His interest was in Boston rather than in New Hamp- 
shire. During the eleven years that he held office it is not easy 
to point to any progress due to his activity and influence. Much 
of the time he was at loggerheads with the house of representa- 
tives, because they would not impose and collect taxes as he 
desired. In the boundary dispute he wrote for New Hampshire 
and acted for Massachusetts. 

Yet he resented what appeared to be duplicity in others. 
Wentworth had written to London letters complimentary to 
both Shute and Belcher, not knowing then whether the former 
would be continued in office. Governor Belcher refused to be 
entertained the second time at the house of Wentworth, after 
he had been informed of what the latter had done. This also 
may have made him the more insistent that no part of the salary 
of two hundred pounds voted to him should be shared with 
Wentworth, as Governor Burnet had agreed, and Belcher made 
Wentworth sign an agreement that quit all claim to any salary 
or allowance from the assembly, depending wholly on the gov- 
ernor, who allowed him nothing, except the fees and perquisites 
arising from registers, certificates, licenses and passes, amount- 
ing to about fifty pounds annually. In consequence of this the 
friends of Wentworth formed an opposing party, led by his son 
Benning Wentworth, afterward governor, and his son-in-law, 
Theodore Atkinson. The latter was shorn of most of his offices 
and emoluments and was made to feel his inferior position. 
Richard Wibird became collector of customs in his stead, and he 



was left with only half the office of high sheriff, Ellis Huske 
having the other half. 

On the death of John Wentworth, December 12, 1730, 
Colonel David Dunbar, a native of Ireland with a Scotch name, 
was appointed lieutenant governor of New Hampshire and 
surveyor of the king's woods. Both offices occasioned him 
much trouble. He had had charge of the fort at Pemaquid and 
had induced many to settle in the neighboring parts of Maine. 
Here he had a fine residence and farm. He made himself 
unpopular everywhere he went by an overbearing attitude, per- 
haps fostered by his military office. There had been opposition 
between him and Governor Belcher before the former's appoint- 
ment to office in New Hampshire and this became at once 
manifest on his arrival at Portsmouth. In Belcher's correspond- 
ence with Richard Waldron he calls Dunbar "that bull-frog from 
the Hibernian fenns" and often alludes to him as "Sancho." 
Dunbar sought to magnify his office, as George Vaughan had 
done before, claiming that when Governor Belcher was out of 
New Hampshire, the duties of governor in that province 
devolved upon himself, and he submitted to the council a series 
of questions bearing upon that claim, to which no reply has been 

Dunbar sided with Benning Wentworth and Theodore Atkin- 
son in their dislike of Governor Belcher and schemes to get rid 
of him. A petition for the removal of Governor Belcher was 
signed by fifteen persons, and another petition for his retention 
in office was signed by more than a hundred. Both petitions 
went to London on the same vessel. Dunbar sought to get 
himself appointed governor in place of Belcher, only to bring 
himself into contempt, as shown by a citation from a letter of 
John Sharp, one of the lords of trade, to Governor Belcher: 

"The first Degree of Power in every Province ought only to be in- 
trusted to those of great & exalted minds, & will always, by a wise Prince, 
be kept at a distance from or out of the reach of all, who are of a grovelling 
& mean Disposition ; & I am therefore fully convinced your Excellency will 
continue to hold your Reins of Government, without a possibility of their 
being snatched out of your hands by this vain aspiring man ; & that he will 
Phaeton-like fall in the Attempt he is now making for that purpose; for he 
has presented the most extraordinary petition, the end of which is to obtain 

2 N. H. Prov. Papers, IV. 645. 


two very modest Requests, tho' entirely inconsistent one with the other ; to 
wit, that he may be made Governor-in-Chief of New hampshire, & that he 
may have a moiety of your Excellency's salary as such ; but men of poor & 
low talents will always blunder in this manner.''^ 

It is only fair that the student of history should see another 
portrait of Colonel Dunbar, drawn by his friend, Theodore 
Atkinson, in letters to the province's agent in London, Mr. John 
Thomlinson : 

"Whatever is proposed by the house for the good of the Province is not 
concurred by the Council, who is so entirely swayed & Influenced by the 
Governor that any thing that seems in the least to clash with the Massa- 
chusetts Interest is Immediately rejected, & this we fear will always be the 
case while we are governed by a Massachusetts man, which we are fond of 
believing is near at an end & should be, I believe, Intirely content to be 
govern'd by Coll. Dunbar \yho is^ a^gentlemarij Jhat the more knowledge wc 
have of him the more we are attached to him & we flatter ourselves he will be 
the man at least the Governor of this Province" . . . "The Coll hath 
been as illy treated both by Superiours & Infer's as perhaps any man ever 
was, the Governor still not only Insisting upon all POWER & SALLARY 
even when in Boston that he in all Companies Ridicules & Denys that there 
ever was any thing said at the Board of Trade, that really Coll Dunbar is 
no more than a Cypher; not one of the Governor's officers ever comes near 
him either civil or military, the militia often meeting and beating drums 
about the Town without his knowledge or consent; if they are asked by any 
indifferent person why they don't pay that Complyment, they will tell you 
'tis to obleige the Governor; the Council setts in the same house where the 
Coll. lives & are summoned by the President by orders from the Governor 
& there transacts the affairs without even taking the least notice of the 
Lieut Governor. These transactions render the Coll. Intirely uncapable of 
doing any service either as Lieut Governor or as Surveyor General, for now 
if he gets decrees from the Admiralty, the people will mob & murther his 
men that will venture to put in execution such Decrees & if they apply to 
the Governor he will forward their account against the Coll. & will 
at the same time refuse to call those rioters to an account or make any 
Inquiry into it tho' desired by a large part of the Lower house — indeed he 
many months after put out a Proclamation but offered no reward & En- 
deavours by all ways & means he can to render the Coll. odious, who not- 
withstanding the nature of his Imployment, being what the people ignorantly 
think detrymental to them, yet was there an Election tomorrow for Com- 
mander in Chief I am sure he would have three to one against Governor 
Belcher. . . . The Government is a farce & we are Laugh'd at by every 
body. . . . One act hath been all that has been done in Two years, tho' 
at each Sessions many publick acts hath been voted by both Houses so 

3 N. H. Prov. Papers, IV. 669. 


that we are worryed to Distraction with this Governor & the Lord send us 
a Deliverance."* 

The above citations present a vivid picture of the political 
intrigues going on at Portsmouth, vi'here the council were in 
league with Governor Belcher in seeking to restore the old union 
of New Hampshire with Massachusetts, while members of the 
house were endeavoring to obtain another governor and thus 
to be entirely separate from Massachusetts. In this controversy 
the people sided with the house of representatives, and when 
the latter was dissolved five or six times in rapid succession by 
a petulant and wilful governor, the same persons were reelected 
to form a new house. Thus no progress was made in legislation. 
The house would not lay taxes upon the people and raise money 
needed to pay current expenses, and the governor and council 
would not agree to a large issue of bills of credit. Thus the 
deadlock existed for two years or more. 

The house of representatives wanted emissions of paper 
money, redeemable ten years or so later. Few governments seem 
to be willing to pay expenses as thy go. It is so much easier 
apparently to issue paper money in the way of bonds or other 
securities and let the next generation pay the bills of the present 
time. Such bills of credit are necessary in times of great stress 
and urgency, occasioned by war, famine, earthquake or plague, 
but for the payment of the regularly recurring expenses of town, 
county and state the people should be taxed enough annually. 
The house of representatives allowed bills to accumulate for 
several years, till in 1736 the budget amounted to six thousand 
five hundred pounds, for which bills of credit were issued, four 
thousand pounds being redeemable in 1741 and the rest the fol- 
lowing year. For the purchase of these bills payment could be 
made in silver, hemp, flax or bars of iron, at stated prices, and 
the prices fixed were sufficient to encourage the growth of the 
industries involved. When private merchants combined to issue 
paper money to supply the place of currency, the governor issued 
a proclamation against them and denounced them before the 
assembly, and when the latter tried to vindicate such currency, 
the Governor dissolved them with vigorous use of uncompli- 
mentary adjectives, the justice of which they were unwilling to 

* N. H. Prov. Papers, IV., pp. 836, 840. 


admit, and they told him so in language more dignified than his 

Allusion has been made, in the letter of Theodore Atkinson, 
to obstructions put in the way of Colonel Dunbar as surveyor 
of the king's woods. Here he came into conflict with many 
trespassers, who could not be entirely restrained from cutting 
pine trees reserved for royal masts. He had authority to seize 
logs cut from such pines, and the claimants had to prove their 
property in the court of admiralty, where decision rested with 
the judge alone and no jury could be summoned. Colonel 
Dunbar went to saw-mills and in an offensive manner seized 
private property, which irritated the owners as much as would 
the confiscation of their lands. At Dover Dunbar and Paul Ger- 
rish threatened each other with death, in case a pile of boards 
were removed or not removed, and Dunbar made prudence the 
better part of valor, leaving the boards to Gerrish. Some agents 
of Dunbar were sent to Exeter for a like purpose, and at nine 
o'clock in the evening, at the inn of Captain Samuel Gilman, 
they were beset by a disguised gang of malcontents, who beat 
and abused them so that they narrowly escaped with their lives. 
Moreover the rigging of their boats was cut and holes were made 
in the bottoms of the boats, so that they were obliged to return 
to Portsmouth in the morning on foot. A proclamation for the 
arrest of the rioters was issued after six days, — not many months 
as Theodore Atkinson wrote, — but the rioters had been dis- 
guised as Indians, and no witnesses could be found against them. 

Thus Colonel Dunbar, in his office as lieutenant governor 
and as surveyor of the woods, found himself opposed by the 
governor, the council and the people. From the first the gov- 
ernor wanted to get rid of him and have Henry Sherburne 
appointed in his place, and if that could not be, then he favored 
Anthony Reynolds. The assembly never voted Dunbar any 
salary not" presents, as they had done to all former lieutenant 
governors. Insulted, neglected and abused, he retired for two 
years to his home near Pemaquid. On his return to Portsmouth 
Governor Belcher somewhat relented and made him commander 
of fort William and Mary, at New Castle. This post gave him 
an income of about fifty pounds, and he gathered in three hun- 
dred pounds more from his office as surveyor, out of which he 


had to pay his deputies. He was not allowed even to preside at 
the sittings of the council, in the absence of Governor Belcher, a 
privilege which had always been accorded to preceding lieuten- 
ant governors, but he was not, as they had been, appointed also 
as councilor. In 1737 Dunbar went to England to further his 
plans to be made governor, where he was thrown into prison 
for debt. His liberation was effected by Mr. Thomlinson, and 
although he could not secure his own appointment as governor 
he had influence enough in London to work the downfall of 
Belcher. In 1743 Dunbar was appointed by the East India 
Company governor of St. Helena. 

The petition sent to London in favor of Governor Belcher 
seems to have produced no efifect other than that three new 
councilors were commissioned that caused him great annoyance. 
These were Benning Wentworth, Theodore Atkinson and 
Joshua Pierce, all opponents of Belcher. It was probably 
thought best to give both parties a fair representation in the 
council, so that the governor might not have too free a hand in 
tightening the reins of government. These men were kept out 
of their seats in the council for two years on some pretext about 
the administration of their oaths. Meanwhile they were chosen 
by the people as members of the house of representatives, and 
even then Governor Belcher claimed to make himself judge of 
elections and sought to exclude Joshua Pierce from the house. 
The house refused to choose a speaker or do any business till 
Pierce was properly seated. Here also he was forced to yield 
to the persistent opposition of the people and their representa- 
tives in defense of what they conceived to be their right accord- 
ing to English law and custom. The house told the governor 
that they were the sole judges of the due or undue election of 
representatives and that if the governor had "authority upon 
pretense of undue elections to prevent any member from acting 
in the House, it would be a power in a manner equal to that of 
choosing the Assembly himself," and that even the king never 
pretended to examine the due or undue elections of members of 

Such little touches upon the historic canvas are of import- 
ance as showing the growth of the democratic spirit and power. 
The age-long struggle between the masses of people and the 


aristocratic few has not yet ended. The Lords in England are 
facing deprivation of power or extinction at the hands of the 
House of Commons. Similar oppositions in this country have 
arisen between the Senate and the House in congress. When 
the council, the senate, or the judiciary are thought to be nullify- 
ing the will of the people at large, then the former are forced 
to give way, or they will become representatives of the people 
by direct election rather than by appointment of kings and legis- 
latures. An Upper House, not constituted by the people them- 
selves, has always been meant to be a check to the wishes and 
aims of the people, as expressed in the Lower House. More and 
more the conviction is growing that no such check is needed. 
The representatives of New Hampshire felt this nearly two 
centuries ago. 

In 1730 the house voted that the four quarterly courts of 
sessions and inferior court of common pleas should be held in 
the four original towns, at Portsmouth in December, at Exeter 
in March, at Dover in September, and at Hampton in June, and 
this became law the following year. The practice was found 
convenient for the people, but Colonel Dunbar wrote to the 
board of trade in London, remonstrating against it. The act in 
consequence was disallowed, and after 1735 all the courts were 
held in Portsmouth.^ 

In 1732 the erection of an Episcopal church began in Ports- 
mouth, near the site of the present St. John's church. Theodore 
Atkinson was one of the leaders in this movement and Mr. 
Thomlinson, besides contributing liberally himself, procured 
financial assistance in London. "It was called Queen's church 
in honor of Queen Caroline, consort of George IT, who gave the 
books for the altar and pulpit, the plate, and two mahogany 
chairs which are still in use." Atkinson wrote to Thomlinson 
about it in 1734 thus, — "The Governor may make what pre- 
tences he pleaseth but he is the greatest Enemy the Church of 
England hath upon this Continent, I believe & had it not been 
for him, I believe, ours in this place would have been finished, 
but he upon being asked whether he would contrybute towards 
it said, not as a Church, but if the Proprietors would make a 

5 Belknap's Hist, of N. H., p. 233. 


Stall-house of it he would give Twenty or Thirty pounds."^ He 
says also that this was the first church ever erected in the 
province and was carried on by the chief people therein, whose 
good example, he hoped would be very prevalent in neighboring 
towns. In Portsmouth "upwards of one hundred families of 
the best sort of People already declared their fixed and deter- 
mined resolution, & such as without whose help this town will 
scarce ever be able to maintain another Desenting Minister when 
either of those now here shall be removed." The church had 
already cost two thousand pounds. Its adherents had to pay the 
usual tax to support the dissenters and subscribed freely toward 
the salary of the Rev. Arthur Brown, who continued with them 
till 1773. His salary was paid in part by the society for propa- 
gating the gospel in foreign parts. 

At the very beginning of his administration Governor 
Belcher called attention to the need of revising the laws, of put- 
ting all grants, deeds and public papers into proper condition and 
of erecting a handsome court house in Portsmouth, but such 
were the poverty of the province and the oppositions between 
the governor and the people that his advice was disregarded. 
Bills of credit were already worth only a third of their face 
value, and it was no time to erect costly public buildings. Gov- 
ernors and rulers in general have thought too little of the 
burdens they put upon overtaxed people, since the rich shift their 
taxes upon tenants and consumers. 

The condition of New Hampshire in 1730 is shown in 
answer to queries sent from the lords of trade and plantations. 
The trade of the province was almost entirely in lumber and 
fish. Timber from oak, pine, hemlock, ash, beech and birch was 
manufactured into beams, plank, knees, clap-boards, shingles 
and staves, and sometimes into house-frames. Such commod- 
ities were sent to Europe and the West India islands to the 
value of about one thousand pounds sterling, and the coast trade 
in timber and lumber amounted to five thousand pounds. From 
the West India islands the province received rum, sugar, mo- 
lasses and cotton, and from Spain and Portugal came vessels 
laden with salt in exchange for fish. British manufactures to the 
value of five thousand pounds came in generally by way of 

6 N. H. Prov. Papers, IV. 837. 


Boston. The seafaring men numbered only forty, and five ships 
of one hundred tons burden belonged to the province. There 
were three or four hundred tons of other shipping that traded 
in Portsmouth annually. The number of inhabitants of the pro- 
vince was ten thousand whites and two hundred blacks. At that 
time there were no Indians living permanently in New Hamp- 
shire and none nearer than the eastern parts of Maine. The 
militia numbered eighteen hundred, consisting of two regiments 
of foot, with a troop of horse in each. There was one fort, 
greatly in need of repair, and not a barrel of gunpowder in it. 
The revenue of the province amounted to three hundred and 
ninety-six pounds raised by tax on liquors, and three or four 
barrels of gunpowder were paid by shipping as powder money. 
This was expended at the fort. All other revenue came from 
polls and estates. The ordinary expense of the government was 
about fifteen hundred pounds in time of peace. The judges, 
justices, sheriffs and clerks had only the fixed fees of their sev- 
eral offices and drew nothing from the public treasury. The 
governor's salary was six hundred pounds in depreciated cur- 
rency and he commissioned all civil and military officers, except 
the council appointed by the king, the recorder of deeds chosen 
by the general assembly, the clerks of courts nominated by the 
judges, and town officers chosen by the towns at their annual 

During this period several new towns were incorporated. 
Among them was Durham, May 15, 1732, formerly a part of 
Dover and known as Oyster River. It had long been a separate 
parish and the Rev. John Buss served here many years as min- 
ister and physician. The church was organized in 1717 and the 
eccentric and able Hugh Adams became its first settled minister. 
The town made as much trouble for him as he made for the 
town, several law-suits between them having arisen. Saw-mills, 
ship-building and agriculture gave the town considerable pros- 
perity and prominence in the early days, and many of its leading 
citizens will be mentioned in the subsequent history of the state. 
We have already seen that it suffered more than any other set- 
tlement in the Indian wars. This town contains the oldest house 

7 N. H. Prov. Papers, IV. 532-3. 


in the state built in 1649 by Captain Valentine Hill. It is also 
the seat of New Hampshire College. 

The government of Massachusetts granted to John Coffin 
and eighty others of Newbury a tract of land seven miles square, 
on the northern border of Penacook, now Concord. This tract 
was called Contoocook, from the Indian name of the river. It 
was incorporated by New Hampshire as Boscawen, in 1760, in 
honor of Sir Edward Boscawen, an English admiral. The set- 
tlement of this town was begun in 1734 by Nathaniel Danforth, 
Moses Burbank, Stephen Gerrish, Edward Emery and others, 
who built a log fort one hundred feet square. This was much 
needed in the subsequent Indian war. Within the limits of this 
town is the monument to Hannah Dustin, mentioned earlier in 
this work. The tOMoi of Webster was formed from the western 
portion of Boscawen, July 3, i860, and so named in honor of 
Daniel Webster. 

Chapter XIV 



Chapter XIV 


Encroachments of Massachusetts — Importance of the Issue — Rindge and 
Thomlinson, Agents — Commissioners Appointed by the King — Attitude 
of Governor Belcher — Meeting at Hampton — Claims of Both Provinces- 
Meeting of Two Legislatures at Hampton Falls — Points in Dispute- 
Reference of the Main Question to the King — Prominent Features of 
Historical Interest — Appeals, Petitions and Delays — Decision of the King 
in Council — Chagrin of Massachusetts — Ex Parte Survey of the Lines 
— George Mitchell, Richard Hazzen and Walter Bryant, Surveyors- 
Mistake in the Variation of the Needle — New Hampshire's Unexpected 
Gain of Territory— Survey of 1825 — Varnum's Monuments — Determina- 
tion of the Jurisdictional Line in 1889 — Re-survey and Extension of the 
Line between New Hampshire and Maine — The West bank of Connecti- 
cut River the Boundary between New Hampshire and Vermont. 

THIS subject was so thoroughly considered by Dr. Belknap 
and so much has been written upon it since his time that 
little more can now be said. The controversy dates from the 
first settlements in the two provinces and had its origin in the 
grasping ambition of Massachusetts. During the administra- 
tions of governors Shute and Belcher carefully planned 
encroachments were made by the government of Massachusetts 
upon territory claimed by New Hampshire. Grants of thirty 
towns were made in the valleys of the Merrimack and Connec- 
ticut rivers and region lying between, and settlements were made 
therein by Massachusetts people. The question of jurisdiction 
only was in controversy. It was believed that the first settlers 
would continue to hold their improved lands, whatever final 
decision might be reached about the lines of the two provinces. 
Much earlier Massachusetts had granted the townships of 
Salisbury, Haverhill and Dracut, extending their limits much 
further north than three miles from the Merrimack, and no 
serious objection had been made by New Hampshire, since for 
the most part the claim of the latter had been for a line running 
due west from a point three miles north of the mouth of that 
river. The settlement of Londonderry in 1719 brought the issue 



more clearly into public view. Conflicts arose between people 
of that town and those of Haverhill, and numerous arrests were 
made of settlers in Londonderry, who were carried to courts 
in Essex county for trial. These vexations cost the town of 
Londonderry alone about one thousand pounds. All along the 
southern boundary of New Hampshire, from the ocean to Paw- 
tucket falls, settlers did not know whether to pay taxes in 
Massachusetts or in New Hampshire. 

But the main question was that of jurisdiction. What gov- 
ernment should make the grants in the northern valley of the 
Merrimack and beyond? Was New Hampshire to be a small 
and feeble colony, surrounded by Massachusetts, or was it to 
become the equal of its southern neighbor in extent of territory? 
Many felt that New Hampshire, in the former case, could not main- 
tain its independence. Both provinces had one governor, but he 
lived in Boston and visited the northern province only twice a 
year for a short time. New Hampshire wanted to be entirely 
separated from Massachusetts and have a governor of its own, 
but it was too small and poor to support such a luxury according 
to the style that gentleman demanded. With enlargement of 
borders and influx of settlers it was thought that New Hamp- 
shire would obtain and be able to maintain an independent head 
to its government. Perhaps Benning Wentworth already had 
ambition to fill the chief seat of power in his native town and 
province and this may have made him and his relatives the 
principal opponents of Governor Belcher, who with the major- 
ity of his council sought annexation of the province to Massa- 
chusetts, whereby all boundary disputes would be settled. The 
continued existence of New Hampshire as a separate province 
was at stake. Therefore the lower house continually agitated 
in favor of a settlement of the boundary, and it appointed and 
paid its agents in London, without the consent of council or 

The agent chosen by New Hampshire's house of represent- 
atives, in spite of non-concurrence of the council, was Captain 
John Rindge, a merchant of Portsmouth, whom Governor 
Belcher alludes to as "the Ipswich lad." He moved to Ports- 
mouth from Ipswich in 1700 and married Ann, daughter of 
Jotham Odiorne. He became a member of the House and later 


of the Council, dying in 1740, when Belcher wrote of him, "The 
clan won't presently find such another able gamecock.^ Captain 
Rindge was given authority to choose a substitute, if necessary, 
and he could not have made a better choice than he did, for 
Captain John Thomlinson, merchant of London, cared for the 
interests of New Hampshire as he might have cared for his 
own ancestral acres. He seems to have had a winning way with 
the king's advisers, and he was in argument more than a match 
for Francis Wilks, agent for Massachusetts. Rindge was ap- 
pointed agent in 1731, after the failure of commissioners, who 
met at Newbury, to arrive at any agreement. 

Governor Belcher seems at first to have been impressed with 
the fairness and justice of New Hampshire's claims. He thus 
wrote to the Lords of Trade January 13, 1732-3: 

Although, my Lords, I am a Massachusetts man, yet I think this Province 
alone is culpable on this head. N. Hampshire has all along been frank & 
ready to pay exact duty & obedience to the King's order, and has mani- 
fested a great inclination to peace & good neighborhood. But in return 
the Massachusetts Province have thrown unreasonable obstacles in the w^ay of 
any settlement, and altho' they have for 2 or 3 years past been making 
offers to settle with N. Hampshire they will not do so with them, which 
seems to me a plain argument that the leading men of the Massachusetts 
Assembly are conscious to themselves of continual incroachments they are 
making upon their neighbours of N. Hampshire, and so dare not come to 
a settlement.2 

He writes also to Lieutenant Governor Dunbar, "Really the 
Massachusetts have treated your people in a barbarous manner," 
but later on his tone changes. He wishes that the "line 
wretches" had a line around their necks, and in 1739 he writes 
to his wife's brother, Richard Partridge, "Had it not been for 
the hopes the clan of New Hampshire entertained of gaining 
some advantage against the Governor in the controversy, I am 
sensible they had never given themselves any trouble about it."^ 
The fact that he sanctioned the granting by Massachusetts of so 
many towns within limits claimed by New Hampshire was a 
convincing argument that Belcher really favored the claims of 
the former province. The loss of the townships claimed on the 

1 Coll. of Mass. Hist. Soc'y, VH. p. 345. 

2 Coll. of Mass. Hist. Soc'y, Sixth Series, VI., 251; N. H. Prov. Papers, 
IV., p. 649. 

3 Coll. of Mass. Hist. Soc'y, VII. 249. 


northern border, speedily followed by the transference of several 
townships, including Bristol, Tiverton and Little Compton, to 
the colony of Rhode Island, had a tendency to disgust the people 
of Massachusetts with the leadership of Governor Belcher, and 
he easily foresaw the issue. 

Mr. John Thomlinson, assisted by Ferdinand John Paris, a 
shrewd solicitor of London, on the fifteenth of February, 1733, 
presented a petition to the lords for trade and plantations, the 
main object of which was, that the precise spot should be 
determined where the southern boundary line of New Hampshire 
should begin and in what direction it should run, according to 
the terms of the original charter. The petition suggested that 
the spot should be three miles north of the mouth of the Mer- 
rimack river and that the direction should be west, parallel to 
the south boundary line of Massachusetts, which is west six 
and a half degrees north for variation. 

A hearing was granted before the Crown Solicitor, and 
Massachusetts made no argument concerning the point of de- 
parture in fixing the boundary line. Therefore the solicitor 
reported that the line should begin, according to the charter of 
William and Mary, where the counsel for New Hampshire sug- 
gested, but nothing was said about the direction of the line. The 
report was approved by the king's council in 1735, and after long 
delays it was determined that twenty commissioners, chosen 
from the councilors of New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island 
and Nova Scotia, should be appointed to determine the bound- 
ary line, of whom five should constitute a quorum ; "that they 
should meet at Hampton, New Hampshire, on the first day of 
August, 17375 that each province should send to the commis- 
sioners, at their first meeting, the names of two public officers, 
on whom any notice, summons, or final judgment might be 
served ; and at the same time should exhibit, in writing, a plain 
and full state of their respective claims, copies of which should 
be mutually exchanged ; that if either province should neglect 
to send in the names of their officers, or the full state of 
their demands, at the time appointed, then the commissioners 
should proceed e.v parte ; and that when the commissioners should 
have made and signed their final determination, they should 
send copies to the public officers of each province and then 


should adjourn for six weeks, that either party might enter 
their appeal."^ 

The board of Trade wrote to Governor Belcher, that he 
should direct the assemblies of each of the provinces to appoint 
their two public officers and prepare their demands by the time 
the commissioners were to meet. It was feared that he would 
fail to give due direction to the assembly of New Hampshire, to 
the end that their committee and officers should not be duly 
chosen and present at the first meeting of the commissioners, 
since Belcher was reported to have said that the lines in question 
would never be run. Therefore Mr. Thomlinson and his solic- 
itor, Mr. Paris, took extreme care to inform their friends in 
Portsmouth by sending to them duplicates of instructions given 
and to warn them to have their officials in readiness. The event 
proved as was feared. Governor Belcher prorogued both assem- 
blies to the fourth of August, four days after the commissioners 
were to meet at Hampton, after giving an opportunity to the 
general court at Boston to name their two public officers, who 
were Josiah Willard and Edward Winslow. The assembly of 
New Hampshire, at its session in April, appointed a committee 
of eight, empowered "to prepare witnesses, pleas and allegations, 
papers and records, to be laid before the commissioners ; to pro- 
vide for their reception and entertainment, and to draw upon the 
treasurer for such supplies of money as might be needful."^ The 
committee appointed by the council consisted of Shadrach 
Walton, George Jaffrey, Jotham Odiorne and Theodore Atkin- 
son ; the house chose Andrew Wiggin, John Rindge, Thomas 
Packer and James Jaffrey. 

This committee met the commissioners at Hampton on the 
first day of August and delivered to them a paper, reciting that 
the assembly had not been convened since the arrival of the 
king's order, but that they themselves, in order that there should 
be no failure for lack of officers, had appointed Richard Waldron, 
secretary, and Eleazer Russell, sheriff. Necessity knows no law, 
and no objection was made to this irregular proceeding. 

The commissioners who met at Hampton were from Nova 
Scotia William Skene, who acted as president, Erasmus James 

4 Bellcnap's Hist, of N. H., p. 239. 
5N. H. Prov. Papers, IV. 732. 


Phillips, and Otho Hamilton ; those from Rhode Island were 
Samuel Vernon, John Gardner, John Potter, Ezekiel Warner and 
George Cornel. Expresses were sent to call the other commis- 
sioners from New Jersey and New York, and at a later meeting 
Philip Livingston from New York appeared, and being senior in 
nomination presided in the court. 

The committee from the assembly of New Hampshire pre- 
sented their claim in writing that the boundary line should 
begin at the middle of the channel of the Merrimack river and 
run due west till it meet his Majesty's other governments and 
that the boundary between New Hampshire and Maine should 
be the Pascataqua and Newichawannock rivers, and from the 
head of the latter a line running north, less than a quarter of a 
point westward as far as the British dominion extended; and 
that the western half of the Isles of Shoals should lie within the 
province of New Hampshire. 

The committee from Massachusetts had no report ready. 
This led the committee from New Hampshire to charge them 
with intentional delay, that proceedings might be obstructed and 
no decision reached by the commissioners. However, they were 
given till the eighth of August only to bring in their claims. If 
they failed to be ready then, the commissioners would proceed 
on an ex parte representation. The assemblies of both New 
Hampshire and Massachusetts met on the fourth of August. The 
former was prorogued to meet at Hampton Falls on the tenth 
of August, and the latter was prorogued to meet the same date 
at Salisbury, places only five miles apart. 

On the eighth of August the committee from Massachusetts 
presented their claim to the commissioners. They contended 
that the boundary line should begin at the Black Rocks, where 
the mouth of the Merrimack had been sixty years before, and 
following the windings of the Merrimack river three miles north 
and east of it, should extend to Endicott tree, which was three 
miles north of the crotch or parting of the river, and thence due 
west to the Pacific ocean, called then the south sea. As for 
the boundary line between Maine and New Hampshire, they 
contended that it should run from the head of the Newichawan- 
nock river due northwest, till one hundred and twenty miles 
from the mouth of Pascataqua harbor be finished. Such a line 


would cut off all the northern portion of the present State of 
New Hampshire, equal to nearly half of the State, and the end 
of the line would be somewhere in the northern part of Vermont. 
A northeast boundary of this sort would be utterly inconsistent 
with the western boundary of New Hampshire as claimed by 

William Parker was chosen clerk of the commissioners and 
later Benjamin Rolfe was added as his assistant. George Mitchel 
of Newbury was chosen as surveyor. He seems to have 
already drawn a plan by which the claims of each province could 
be understood by the commissioners, and his plan was accepted 
for immediate use. 

On the tenth of August the assemblies of Massachusetts and 
New Hampshire met at the appointed places. The governor rode 
in state from Boston to Salisbury, attended by a troop of horse. 
Another troop met him at Newbury ferry, and three more troops 
at the supposed divisional line. These conducted him to the 
George tavern, at Hampton Falls, where he held a council and 
made a speech to the assembly of New Hampshire, recommend- 
ing them to appoint two officers, who, they told him, had already 
been appointed by them without his assistance or recommenda- 
tion. Of course he already knew this, but he was a stickler for 
forms and wished to maintain the dignity and power of his 
office. Either his call of an assembly to elect such officers was 
necessary, or it was not. If not, then his present recommenda- 
tion was needless ; but if necessary, then why had he not called 
the assembly together in due time? Either horn of this dilemma 
gored him, and his opponents made the best use of it they 

The points in debate were, "Whether Merrimack river, at 
that time emptied itself into the sea at the same point where 
it did sixty years before ? Whether it bore the same name, from 
the sea up to the crotch? Whether it were possible to draw a 
parallel line, three miles northward, of every part of a river, 
the course of which was in some places from north to south?" 
Each party had arguments and witnesses, and neither party was 
convinced by the other. While they were arguing the case, the 
governor took a three days' trip to the falls of Amoskeag, now 
Manchester, and the falls were thought to be "mighty." 


The main point of controversy was whether the charter of 
William and Mary covered all the land granted by Charles the 
First. The commissioners evaded a direct answer and referred 
the decision to the king's council. They did not want to assume 
the responsibility and thus offend either Massachusetts or New 
Hampshire. Impartial judges today would say that any fair 
interpretation of the charter of Charles the First would not 
allow to Massachusetts any more territory than they finally ob- 
tained. The commissioners reported "that if the charter of King 
William and Queen Mary grants to the province of Massachu- 
setts Bay all the lands granted by the charter of King Charles 
the First, lying to the northward of Merrimack river, then the 
court adjudge and determine, that a line shall run, parallel with 
the said river, at the distance of three English miles, north from 
the mouth of said river, beginning at the southerly side of the 
Black Rocks, so called, at low water mark and thence to run to 
the crotch, where the rivers of Pemigewasset and Winnipiseogee 
meet, and from thence due north three miles, and from thence 
due west towards the south sea until it meets with his majesty's, 
other governments ; which shall be the boundary or dividing line 
between the said provinces of Massachusetts and New Hamp- 
shire on that side, But, if otherwise, then the court adjudge and 
determine, that a line on the southerly side of New Hampshire, 
beginning at the distance of three miles north from the south- 
erly side of the Black Rocks aforesaid, at low water mark, and 
from thence running due west up into the mainland toward the 
south sea, until it meets with his majesty's other governments 
shall be the boundary line between the said provinces, on the 
side aforesaid." As to the northern boundary the court adjudged 
that the line should run from the mouth of the Pascataqua up 
through the middle of the Newichawannock, or Salmon Falls- 
river, and from the head thereof north, two degrees westerly, 
till one hundred and twenty miles be finished, or until it meets 
with his majesty's other government. The entire expenses of 
the commission were to be borne by the two provinces equally. 
Thus nothing was decided after many years of delay, trouble and 
expense. The commissioners were given power to decide the 
controversy, but they disliked to offend anybody. They chose 
the safe middle path between right and wrong. 


The commissioners adjourned till the twelfth of October, 
when they received appeals from both provinces. That of New 
Hampshire was the action of the House of Representatives 
alone, since the governor had dismissed the Council. It seems as 
though the governor and council were minded to block further 
procedure by legal informalities. When the House of Represent- 
atives proposed the raising of money to prosecute the appeal in 
London, the Council non-concurred, on the ground that the ap- 
peal was not an act of the Council, and that they had no voice in 
the appointment of the agent, Mr. Thomlinson. Their real animus 
was shown in the fact that they got up a petition to the king, 
asking that New Hampshire be joined to Massachusetts as one 
province. This was after the decision of the king in council. 
The assembly of Massachusetts voted two thousand pounds for 
the prosecution of their appeal and appointed Edmund Quincy 
and Richard Partridge agents to assist Francis Wilks. 

About this time governor Belcher reminded the respective 
assemblies of the two provinces that on account of the deprecia- 
tion of currency considerable sums were due him on his salary. 
The government of Massachusetts acknowledged the justice of 
his claim and voted him three hundred and thirty-three pounds, 
as they did to the president of Harvard college at the same time. 
The House of Representatives of New Hampshire voted him 
nothing, although his bill for depreciation was over three 
thousand pounds. He was asking for back pay for ten years. 
He had received such currency as others had received, and had 
no juster claim than they. Some ministers about the same time 
were asking increase of salary for similar reason, and the unpop- 
ular minister had great trouble to get enough to live on. A 
rigid adherence to the letter of a law is a great convenience, 
when one wishes to avoid a just financial obligation, or silence 
the clamors of conscience. 

The legal documents, arguments, rebuttals, evidences and 
appeals, in the trial before the commissioners, as set forth at 
length in the nineteenth volume of the New Hampshire State 
Papers, are a formidable array on both sides and show a great 
amount of acumen. They sometimes remind the reader of the 
Athenian sophists, who could make the worse appear the better 
reason. A few points of interest may be noted. 


The charter granted to Massachusetts by William and Mary- 
left out some important words, "to the Northward of any and 
every part thereof," which are found in the older charter of 
Charles the First, in naming the northern boundary of Massa- 
chusetts. The advocates for New Hampshire pressed this point. 
This may have put the commissioners in doubt. 

Both parties to the controversy claimed too much, thinking 
perhaps that one extravagant demand would counterbalance the 
other. Three miles north of a river manifestly means three miles 
north of the whole river and should be measured from the north- 
ern shore and not from the middle of a channel that was chang- 
ing its course from time to time by reason of shifting sands. 
The Black Rocks were the rational northern bank of the river 
Merrimack as they are today. 

It was probably the intention of the original charter to 
Massachusetts that the northern boundary line should run due 
west from a point three miles north of the Black Rocks, sup- 
posing that the river ran from west to east. Massachusetts 
must have so thought in granting land to Haverhill. The idea 
of a boundary line parallel with the windings of the river was a 
later invention since only by such an interpretation could Massa- 
chusetts claim the upper Merrimack valley as far as a pretended 
Endicott tree, three miles north of the crotch, where the Pemi- 
gewasset and Winnepiseogee unite to form the Merrimack. New 
Hampshire scouted the idea that there ever was any such tree. 
That claim is quite diflferent from the claim established when the 
Endicott Rock was inscribed. 

New Hampshire asserted that the Merrimack river was so 
named only from the first falls above Haverhill, Massachusetts, 
to the ocean, while the testimony was abundant that its northerly 
course up to the crotch was never known by any other name by 
Indians or whitemen. 

The Massachusetts lawyers made it as plain as mud that 
north and south of the Merrimack really meant east and west of 
it also. 

On the other hand the advocates for New Hampshire made 
"northwest" mean two degrees west of north, and the commis- 
sioners so ruled, thus nearly doubling the territory of the 
province. Surely the commissioners were better statesmen than 


surveyors. They considered present and future political require- 
ments more than the original meaning of words in a grant. The 
king's council supported this view of the case. 

New Hampshire contended that, since the grant to Sir 
Ferdinando Gorges was only of land from the Pascataqua river 
eastward, therefore all islands in the river belonged to New 
Hampshire, and upon one such island the province had erected 
and maintained a fort for many years. It is certain that several 
other islands near the mouth of the river had always been 
conceded as belonging to the province of Maine, and these had 
been taxed as a part of Kittery, among such islands being those 
whereon is the present navy yard. The decision of the king did 
not change the previous status of the islands. Perhaps it was 
thought that it might be well to claim all in order to retain a 
part ; the overreaching of Massachusetts must be countered in 
a similar manner. 

Massachusetts objected to the projection of the southern 
boundary line of New Hampshire, till it met with his majesty's 
other governments, because the original grant to Captain John 
Mason extended only sixty miles from the sea ; also they said 
that the northern boundary line should extend only one hundred 
and twenty miles, the fixed limit of the province of Maine. 
There was reason in these objections, but the king and his coun- 
cil meant to create a separate province, — an enlarged province 
based upon an ancient grant, that would be a rival to Massachu- 
setts and perhaps a check to her political aspirations. The Bay 
Colony had made too much trouble and was not subservient 
enough to the wishes of magnates in London. 

The argument urged in favor of the northern line as only 
two degrees west from north was, that thus would be included 
in New Hampshire a large tract of forest, having the best masts 
for the royal navy. This argument was privately communicated 
to Mr. Thomlinson in London, and expediency triumphed over 
mathematics, though the opinion of the learned Dr. Halley was 
sought and obtained in favor of a northwest line. 

Edmund Quincy, one of the agents of Massachusetts, soon 
died, and Francis Wilks and Richard Partridge were a poor 
match against John Thomlinson and the astute and resourceful 
Ferdinando John Paris. His appeal was largely a complaint and 


was based somewhat upon his imagination, not having before 
him the needed documents in full, but it was effective. He con- 
trasted "the vast, opulent, overgrown province of Massachu- 
setts" with "the poor, little, loyal, distressed province of New 
Hampshire." The appeal to sympathy is a mighty persuasive 
to men who are already convinced. 

The appeals, correspondence, petitions and legal formalities 
delayed the decision of the king's council more than two years. 
Meanwhile the opponents of Governor Belcher were seeking in 
every possible way to secure his removal from office, and he had 
enemies in Massachusettts as well as in New Hampshire. A 
forged letter from Exeter, subscribed ostensibly by five citizens 
of that town, was sent to Sir Charles Wager, first lord of the 
admiralty, accusing Governor Belcher of working against the 
surveyor of the king's woods in encouraging the destruction of 
mast-pines. Belcher proved this letter to be a malicious lie, and 
that no such persons lived in Exeter, but the letter had wrought 
the mischief that a slanderous falsehood never seeks to correct, 
when exposed. The complaint that he had neglected to keep fort 
William and Mary in proper repair and supplies was sufficiently 
answered by the governor, who showed that he had visited 
the province twice a year and always recommended proper care 
of the fort, but the house of representatives would not vote the 
necessary funds. Five petitions, signed by five hundred names, 
were sent to London, in favor of Governor Belcher, and a coun- 
ter petition, signed by seven hundred, was also sent, less than 
half the province having been canvassed for this purpose. 

The lords in council censured Governor Belcher for his great 
partiality in proroguing the assembly of New Hampshire, as he 
had done at the time of the meeting of the commissioners at 
Hampton Falls, and thus it was already evident that his down- 
fall was decreed. Thomlinson kept sending assurances to friends 
in Portsmouth that the line would be fixed according to their 
wishes, and the decision of the king in council was probably 
well known by some in close touch with them before it was 
formally proclaimed. That decision was on the fifth of March, 
1740, and it was as follows : 

That the Northern boundary of the said Province of the Massachusetts 
Bay are ajid be a similar Curve line pursueing the course of Merrimack 
River at three miles distance on the North side therof beginning at the 


Atlantic Ocean, and ending at a Point due North of a place in a Plan re- 
turned by the said Commissioners call'd Pantucket Falls, and a strait Line 
•drawn from thence due West cross the said River till it meets with his 
Majestys other Governments, and that the rest of the Commissioners said 
Report or determination be affirmed by his Majesty.6 

The decision was a surprise to both provinces. New Hamp- 
shire was delighted and Massachusetts was chagrined. The 
former gained a tract on its southern border fourteen miles broad 
and fifty miles in length. "It cut off from Massachusetts twenty- 
eight new townships, between Merrimack and Connecticut 
rivers, besides large tracts of vacant land which lay intermixed, 
and districts from six of their old towns on the north side of the 
Merrimack; and if, as was then supposed, the due west line were 
to extend to twenty miles east of Hudson's river, the reputed 
boundary of New York, a vast tract of fertile country, on the 
western side of Connecticut river, was annexed to New Hamp- 
shire, by which an ample scope was given, first for landed specu- 
lation and afterward for cultivation and wealth."^ 

Massachusetts could not submit without a struggle. Peti- 
tions flew from many of the twenty-eight towns to London, to 
be re-annexed to Massachusetts. Six of the governor's friends 
in the New Hampshire council petitioned that the whole 
province should be annexed. Thomas Hutchinson, afterward 
governor of Massachusetts, was sent as agent to London to 
secure the ends of these petitions, but no heed was paid to his 
entreaties. "The petitions themselves," wrote Mr. Thomlinson 
to the New Hampshire committee, "are full of false facts, false 
geography, false reasoning — a most weak but wicked attempt 
of the unruly province of the Massachusetts Bay to sap that 
foundation, which his Majesty in great wisdom hath laid and 
fixt, and which must be the only means of establishing the last' 
ing tranquility and happiness of both provinces." 

Governor Belcher was commanded by the king's council 
to issue orders to both his provinces to join in the appointment 
of surveyors to run the boundary lines, specifying that if either 
of the assemblies should decline to do so, the other should 
proceed ex parte, following strictly the decision of the king. 
Massachusetts neglected to cooperate and after some consulta- 

6 N. H. State Papers, XIX. 478. 
"Belknap's Hist, of N. H., p. 227. 


tion with the New Hampshire House of Representatives the 
governor appointed three surveyors to run out and mark dif- 
ferent portions of the Hne. George Mitchell of Newbury sur- 
veyed the line from the ocean to a point about three miles above 
Pentucket Falls, (written also Pawtucket and Pantucket) ; 
Richard Hazzen of Haverhill ran the straight line due west from 
the Pine Tree bound above Pentucket Falls to the boundary line 
of New York; Walter Bryant surveyed the line from the head 
of Salmon Falls river thirty miles into the wilderness, till the 
difficulties of traveling further and the presence of suspected 
Indians induced him and his party to return without finishing 
the survey of the last fifty miles. 

George Mitchell may have been helped in the first reaches 
of his survey by a map of the line from the ocean to Powow 
river made in 1696 by Nathaniel Weare, Joseph Smith, Henry 
Dow and Samuel Dow, all of Hampton, by order of Lieutenant 
Governor John Usher.^ Mitchell's line, as he states, is not 
always just three miles from the Merrimack river, nor could it 
be always three miles due north from corresponding points on 
the north shore of the river, but what little he took from one 
province in certain places he tried to restore in other places, so 
that the territory between the river and the line was about what 
was intended in the king's decision. All surveyors who have 
reexamined this line have testified to its remarkable accuracy, 
especially considering the inferior instruments of surveying then 
in use. He began at a large stone in the marsh about sixty-two 
rods from high water mark, three miles and two hundred and 
twenty rods north from where the Merrimack river entered the 
ocean at that time, and from twenty-eight points of departure 
he measured a broken line of nearly thirty-nine miles in length 
to the Boundary Pine. It cut off much land from Salisbury, 
Amesbury, Haverhill, Methuen and Dracut, which tracts were 
soon incorporated into separate towns in New Hampshire. His 
bill of costs for himself and four assistants nineteen days, and 
forty days more of work in preparing a chart and his report, 
was one hundred and seventy-one pounds and twelve shillings. 

Richard Hazzen had a harder task, to run a straight line to 
the New York boundary from the Boundary Pine, over rivers. 

8 Sec N. H. State Popers, XIX. 354. 


lakes and mountains, through forests and snows. He succeeded, 
however, with great accuracy. The work was done in March, 
1740. The distance measured by him in twenty-three days was 
one hundred and nine miles, three quarters and thirty-eight 
perches. The line cut all the boundary towns in two. The 
larger part of Dunstable, including the meeting house lot and the 
burial-ground were left in New Hampshire. Nearly all of Not- 
tingham West, now Hudson, was on the north side of the line, 
only a corner being left to Massachusetts, which is now the part 
of Tyngsborough east of the river. There are now seven towns 
in New Hampshire which wholly or in part once belonged to the 
old town of Dunstable as granted by Massachusetts. Groton 
lost a little territory, which now belongs to Nashua and Hollis. 
Townsend was deprived of one-quarter of her land, which now 
belongs to Brookline, Mason and New Ipswich, in New Hamp- 
shire. Ashburnham lost a thousand acres, and "Roxbury Can- 
ada," now Warwick and Royalston, Massachusetts, lost still 
more. Northfield was deprived of the northern strip of its ter- 
ritory four and a half miles wide, which now belongs to 
Hindsdale and Winchester, New Hampshire, and to Vernon, 

Hazzen says in his Journal that he allowed ten degrees for 
"variation allowed per order of the Governor and Council," but 
in the governor's commission there is no mention of such varia- 
tion, while it is expressly mentioned in instructions given to 
Walter Bryant for running the northern boundary line. This 
caused controversy later, for the variation, as all acknowledge, 
was too great, if a line was to run due west. Thus a gore of land 
fifty-six miles long and nearly three miles wide at its western 
end was taken from New Hampshire, which rightfully belonged 
to her according to the King's order. Why Governor Belcher 
ordered such a variation has been a matter of dispute, and 
certainly he had no authority for so doing. Perhaps he wished 
to leave as much as possible to the Massachusetts towns. But 
New Hampshire gained on the northeast boundary line, as run 
by Walter Bryant, a longer strip of land, which Benning Went- 
worth told the king contained the greatest growth of mast trees 
in America, a body of timber not to be equalled in all the 

9 Green's Northern Boundary of Mass., p. 19. 


world, and Mr. Thomlinson acknowledged, in 1740, that by the 
decision of the king New Hampshire would be eight times larger 
than it was accounted to be before. 1*^ Thirty-five hundred square 
miles were taken from territory claimed by Massachusetts and 
added to New Hampshire, so that now the latter has about nine 
thousand square miles, while the former has seven thousand 
eight hundred. 

Eighty-four years afterwards, 1825, commissioners from 
Massachusetts and New Hampshire went over the ground with 
surveyors, and although many of the boundary marks had dis- 
appeared, they were convinced that Mitchell and Hazzen had 
established a line that still could be traced and that their work 
was substantially accurate. New Hampshire then wanted to run 
a new line due west from the spot where had been the Boundary 
Pine, but to this Massachusetts did not agree. The claim of 
New Hampshire, if allowed, would have added fifty-five thous- 
and nine hundred and sixty-nine acres to that state. No settle- 
ment was agreed upon, but two years later, Massachusetts 
authorized Benjamin F. Varnum, her assistant surveyor, to set 
up monuments along the line from the ocean to the Bundary 
Pine, which he did at the angles, to the number of twenty-nine. 
The distance from the Atlantic to the Boundary Pine was thirty- 
four miles and twelve rods. He also marked with monuments 
the line from the Boundary Pine to the Connecticut river. 

Thus the true jurisdictional line remained unsettled till 
1889. After four years of prelininary surveys and disagreements 
commissioners then concluded to accept the line practically as 
run by Mitchell and Hazzen. Nelson Spofford of Haverhill 
as agent for Massachusetts and Prof. E. T. Quimby of Hanover 
resurveyed the line and renewed the monuments. Then were 
found in the Public Record Office at London copies of the 
charts made by Mitchell and Hazzen, though all trace of such 
charts had long before disappeared from the records of New 
Hampshire and of Massachusetts. Spofford and Quimby made 
the distance from the boundary mark by the ocean, called 
Major's Rock, to the place of the Boundary Pine, thirty-five 
and eight-tenths miles, agreeing on some slight changes where 
the ancient boundary could not be clearly established. The stone 

10 N. H. State Papers, XIX. 473. 


where the Boundary Pine had been was found to be two miles 
and three hundred and thirteen rods north of the "great pot- 
hole place," or Great Bunt, as Hazzen called it, at Pawtucket 
Falls, which is now in the city of Lowell. Massachusetts. The 
reports of the commissioners of the two States at that time, with 
accompanying charts and copies of ancient records, form an 
interesting body of historical literature. The old rivalries of 
Provinces have made way for the union of States. 

Bryant's survey of the northern line of New Hampshire 
extended only to Province Pond, seventy miles from the mouth 
of the Pascataqua river. In 1768 he and a Mr. Rindge extended 
the survey thirty-five miles further to a point fifteen or eighteen 
miles north of the Androscoggin river. In 1789 New Hampshire 
appointed two surveyors, Cramm and Eames, who, beginning at 
the northeast corner of the township of Shelburne, ran the line 
across lake Umbagog and the Magalloway river to highlands 
in the present county of Coos, a distance of fifty-four miles. 
Thus the boundary line between New Hampshire and Maine 
was one hundred and forty-eight miles, instead of the one 
hundred and twenty miles first contemplated. The line from 
the head of Salmon Falls river was a broken one, by reason of 
increased variation of the needle between the different times 
of survey. In 1827 the whole line was resurveyed by Eliphalet 
Hunt, the same who had been the agent of New Hampshire 
in surveying the southern line in 1825. His point of departure 
was the "Bryant Rock," at the outlet of East Pond, between 
the towns of Wakefield and Shapleigh, and his terminal was 
the birch tree in the highlands, marked by Cramm and Eames 
in 1789. The distance was one hundred and twelve miles and 
two hundred and thirty-three rods. He further marked the 
spot by heaping stones around the tree. In 1858 the northern 
part of this line was resurveyed by Col. Henry O. Kent, com- 
missioner for New Hampshire, and John M. Wilson, commis- 
sioner for Maine. Their course ran from the Crown Monument, 
set up between the territories of the United States and the 
province of Canada in 1842 by the Treaty of Washington, to 
a stone monument at the northwest corner of Fryeburg, Maine. 
New stone monuments were erected and old ones retouched 
and trees were spotted. Thus the eastern boundary of New 


Hampshire remains fixed. The western boundary, in 1764, was 
declared to be the western bank of the Connecticut river, from 
the Massachusetts line as far north as the forty-fifth degree of 
latitude. This decision was made by the king in council.^^ 

It would seem as though the western bank of the Connecti- 
cut river were a boundary well enough defined, but even now, in 
the year 1916, there are cases in court to determine whether the 
western bank is at high water mark or low water mark, and 
whether certain small islands belong to Vermont or to New 
Hampshire. Houses and mills have been erected where it is 
questionable whether they should be taxed in one State or in 
the other. These cases illustrate how hard it is to fix definite 
meanings in words. Changing circumstances demand new 

11 N. H. State Papers, XIX. 540. 

Chapter XV 

Chapter XV 


John Tufton Mason Claims Ancient Rights — Sale of lands to Massachusetts 
— Thomlinson Offers to buy Mason's rights in New Hampshire — Hesi- 
tation of the House of Representatives — The Entail Docked in New 
Hampshire — Certain Men of Portsmouth Buy Mason's Rights — Promi- 
nence of the Wentworth Family — Why the Hbuse Did not Buy of Mason 
or of the Proprietors — How Townships were Granted — The Curve Line 
— Land-Grabbing Propensity — Purchase of Allen's Heirs and Assigns. 

AFTER the king in council had decided where the southern 
boundary of New Hampshire should be, the people of 
Massachusetts saw that they would lose large portions of land 
heretofore conceded as belonging to Salisbury, Amesbury, 
Haverhill, Methuen and Dracut. In order to quiet private 
owners and possibly to retain possession of lands unoccupied 
they instigated John Tufton Mason to revive the claims of the 
Mason heirs, which had been for a long time unmentioned. 
The entail had been docked in the county of Kent, England, 
and Mason's claim to lands in New Hampshire and Massachu- 
setts had been sold to Samuel Allen. His heirs had sold a 
portion to Sir Charles Hobby. The courts of New Hampshire 
made it impossible for the heirs to obtain possession of their 
own, and so no attempt had been made for a long time. Mean- 
while John Tufton Mason had become a man of ability and 
was quick to discern his rights, when they were pointed out 
to him by the agents of Massachusetts. Together they sought 
legal evidence of his descent from Captain John Mason, by 
means of depositions, and when this was established he sold 
to agents of Massachusetts all the land between the southern 
boundary and a straight line running due west from the eastern 
extremity of the boundary line, amounting to twenty-three thou- 
sand six hundred acres, of which two thousand were within the 
bounds of Salisbury, two thousand five hundred in Amesbury, 
ten thousand in Haverhill, five thousand five hundred and fifty 
in Methuen, and three thousand six hundred and twenty-five 



in Dracut. The price paid was five hundred pounds and the 
date of the deed was July 8, 1738. Mason quitclaimed to the 
proprietors of the aforesaid towns all the lands therein lying 
more than three miles north of the Merrimack river, and it 
was stipulated that the tenants should not be disturbed. Massa- 
chusetts instituted no process of docking the entail. Why they 
did not at the same time buy of John Tufton Mason all his 
claim upon lands in New Hampshire is unexplained. Immedi- 
ately he was sent to London, at the expense of Massachusetts, 
to assist agent Wilks in securing the objects of the deed. 

Mr. Thomlinson, agent for New Hampshire, saw his oppor- 
tunity at once. He proposed to John Tufton Mason to sell his 
claim on lands, tenements and hereditaments in New Hampshire 
to the government of that province, or to John Rindge, Theodore 
Atkinson, Andrew Wiggin, George Jafifrey and Benning Went- 
worth, within twelve months after New Hampshire shall be de- 
clared to be a separate and distinct government from the province 
of the Massachusetts Bay. Mason accepted the proposal and 
signed articles of agreement to that effect April 6, 1739. The 
price to be paid was one thousand pounds.^ A condition was 
that in all future grants of waste lands a share should be 
allotted to John Tufton Mason equal to that of any other 

This agreement was made by Mr. Thomlinson in behalf 
of the House of Representatives for the benefit of the entire 
people of the province. He seems to have made it on his own 
responsibility, without having time for correspondence and con- 
sultation. But he knew what he was about. He and John 
Rindge had already advanced money for the province to the 
extent of twelve hundred pounds, and this scheme opened up 
a way whereby they might be reimbursed. They expected and 
finally received their shares of the lands granted. The agree- 
ment was sent to Governor Benning Wentworth, who trans- 
mitted it to the House of Representatives. Delays were occa- 
sioned by Mason's absence at sea, the war and the changes that 
occurred in the membership of the house during the next five 

Meanwhile Mason, at his own expense, had the entail 

1 N. H. State Papers, XIX. 193-6. 


docked in a New Hampshire court, by an awkward and anti- 
quated process of law, known as a fine and recovery, the ablest 
lawyers declaring that a similar process in England, which 
Samuel Allen had instituted, was not valid outside of the county 
of Kent, where the court was held, and Thomlinson had pointed 
out to them in a letter that the sheriff could not serve a process 
outside of his own bailiwick. Mason kept urging the House to 
fulfill the agreement and pay him for the lands. The House 
insisted that the sale of lands should be made to the general 
assembly, for the benefit of all the people, to be granted by the 
assembly as they should think proper. But Mason came to the 
conclusion that the House did not mean to purchase at all, and 
why should they? For a hundred years the people of New 
Hampshire had resisted all efforts of Mason's heirs and assigns 
to collect rents and take away their lands, and the governor and 
council, in the name of the king, had been granting township 
after township of waste lands and nobody appeared to dispute 
the rights of settlers. Why should they pay a thousand pounds 
for that which they already had for nothing? And why should 
they vote to tax the people for the purchase of lands which only 
the king, through his appointees, could grant? And to whom 
would the lands be granted? The Governor and council could 
do as they pleased about it. 

The men named in Thomlinson's agreement with Mason 
and the council in general contended that the lands must be so 
purchased that the king only, (that is, they themselves) could 
grant new townships. While the House was delaying and voting 
about the matter, Mason sold all his claims to a tew leading 
persons of Portsmouth. The deed was dated July 30, 1746. 
The grantees were Theodore Atkinson,' Richard Wibird, John 
Moffat, Mark Hunking Wentworth, Samuel Moore, Jotham 
Odiorne, Jr., Joshua Pierce, Nathaniel Meserve, George Jaffrey, 
Jr., John Wentworth, Jr., Thomas Wallingford and Thomas 
Packer. The lands were supposed to comprise two hundred 
thousand acres. The price paid was fifteen hundred pounds. 
There were to be fifteen shares. Theodore Atkinson had three 
shares, two of which were for John Tufton Mason, which he 
sold, one-half share each, to Samuel Solly and Clement March, 
and one-half share to John Thomlinson. Mark Hunking Went- 


worth had two shares, one of which he sold to John Rindge. 

Mr. Albert S. Batchellor, in his preface to the second volume 
of Masonian Charters, has pointed out the relationships of these 
men. Mark Hunking Wentworth and John Wentworth were 
brothers, sons with the Governor, Benning Wentworth, of that 
John Wentworth who had been so long lieutenant governor. 
Theodore Atkinson and George Jaffrey were grandsons of 
Lieutenant-Governor John Wentworth. Samuel Solly married 
Jaffrey's sister. Richard Wibird's sister married a brother of 
the two Wentworths named in the deed. Thomas Packer mar- 
ried a sister of the two Wentworths ; his second wife was mother 
of John Rindge and sister of Jotham Odiorne Senior; after the 
death of her first husband she married Nathaniel Meserve. John 
Rindge was brother of the wife of Mark Hunking Wentworth. 
Samuel Moore married a sister of Joshua Pierce ; after his death 
his widow, Mary Pierce, and her brother, Daniel Pierce, owned 
his share. Daniel Pierce married Ann Rindge, sister to John 
Rindge. Clement March was a relative of the Pierce family. 
Thus all of the grantees, except Thomas Wallingford and John 
Moffat, were bound together by family ties. Besides, Mark 
Hunking Wentworth, Theodore Atkinson, Richard Wibird, 
Samuel Solly, George Jaffrey, Daniel Pierce, and Jotham Odiorne 
were members of the Governor's council, and the governor was 
at that time Benning Wentworth. 

Now see what a grip one family had upon the unoccupied 
lands of New Hampshire. These men never would recognize 
the right of the heirs of Captain John Mason or of Samuel Allen 
to one penny's worth of compensation from the settlers of New 
Hampshire for lands cultivated, but to quiet possession, for the 
sake of compromise, and lest John Tufton Mason should sell 
his claim to Massachusetts or some other parties and so make 
trouble in court, they bought all his pretended rights. The 
House now was aroused. They asserted that the grantees had 
deprived them of a great bargain. Some called the grantees 
enemies of the government and villains; some said that they 
preferred to have the lands owned by Massachusetts, or by 
Indians, or French. 

The answer of the grantees was, first, that they quitclaimed 
unto the inhabitants and proprietors of Portsmouth, Dover, 


Exeter. Hampton, Gosport, Kingston, Derry, Chester, Notting- 
ham, Barrington, Rochester, Canterbury, Bow, Chichester, 
Epsom and Barnstead, all right to lands, houses, woods, mines, 
minerals and other appurtenances in said towns. Gilmanton 
and Kingswood were not included, because those towns were 
not settled. This was done gratuitously and the owners of 
lands were quieted. The grantees only reserved to themselves 
in said towns the lands, houses, and so forth which they already 
held in common or severally as inhabitants or proprietors. 

Secondly, they offered to sell to the province what they had 
bought of John Tufton Mason for the price they had paid him, 
with expenses incurred. The House reported that "for quieting 
the minds of the people, and to prevent future difficulty, it would 
be best for the province to purchase the claim, for the use and 
benefit of the inhabitants." The claim of John Tufton Mason 
was not worth considering, but the claim of fifteen proprietors, 
most of them being the leading men of the principal town in 
the province and connected with the most powerful family, was 
something to be reckoned with. The grantees addressed a com- 
munication to a committee of the House, saying that not one 
person believed the assembly ever intended to purchase of 
Mason ; that they, the grantees, might have made large sums 
by confirming the rights of private persons instead of quitclaim- 
ing all rights of their own to the aforesaid towns ; that many of 
the grantees would have given as much to Mason for his private 
quitclaim to their rights in the new towns ; that Mason's rights 
had always hung over them and on every turn they were threat- 
ened with a proprietor since the government was settled ; that 
Massachusetts had bought certain rights of Mason and that 
private persons had offered him more for his rights in New 
Hampshire than they had paid him. Therefore they were justi- 
fied in making the purchase. 

The purchasers would not sell, except on the condition that 
the lands should be granted by the governor and council, as had 
always been done before. The representatives of the people must 
have noticed that the governor and council heretofore had 
granted in every township large tracts to themselves and their 
friends. It was feared that they would continue to do the same. 
Then what benefit would accrue to the people taxed for the pur- 


chase money? The representatives submitted a form of deed, 
by which the purchasers from Mason should convey all the lands 
bought to George Jaffrey and Ebenezer Stevens, as feoffees in 
trust for and in behalf of the inhabitants of the province of New 
Hampshire. Ebenezer Stevens of Kingston was then speaker of 
the House of Representatives. 

To this plan of the House various objections were offered. 
That the waste lands should be granted "by the general assembly 
to the inhabitants of the province, as they shall think proper" 
was "inconsistent with the Constitution and contrary to his 
Majesty's Commission to his Excellency the Governor." Never- 
theless the purchasers were willing to have the House buy the 
lands of them and afterwards petition his majesty for leave to 
dispose of said lands to the people in that manner. Observe, it 
was thought unconstitutional, the last resort of obstructionists 
of the people's will, for the general assembly to buy and grant 
the lands, but afterward the fifteen private persons who did buy 
of Mason granted townships without any reverence for the Con- 
stitution or permission from the king. The form of the pro- 
posed deed also was objected to ; the phrase, "for the use of the 
people" was too indefinite and gave no more advantage to the 
oldest resident than to any newcomer ; and especially no money 
was raised or proposed to be raised for the price of the lands and 

Therefore the purchasers resolved to dispose of the lands 
purchased as they thought proper, and when Governor Benning 
Wentworth, in 1748, had it in mind to grant three townships 
in the former grant of Kingswood, the purchasers resolved to 
"form themselves into a Propriety" in order to care for their 
own interests. They took another deed of John Tufton Mason, 
September 30, 1749, which included land as far south as the 
Naumkeag river in Massachusetts, the southerly boundary of 
Captain John Mason's patent. This was done, notwithstanding 
that John Tufton Mason had already received from Massa- 
chusetts five hundred pounds for a portion of land included in 
this last deed. He was paid twenty shillings for this deed and 
he retained half a share for himself. About this time Mason was 
in London, scheming to get Benning Wentworth appointed 


governor of Massachusetts, so as to leave the post of governor 
of Nev^ Hampshire open for himself.- 

Had the House consented to buy the lands of Mason, then 
the people would have paid for them and the govornor and coun- 
cil, appointed by the king, would have disposed of them as they 
saw fit, large tracts doubtless to themselves, as Lieut-Gov. John 
Wentworth and council had done before. Thus the purchasers 
of Mason would have saved their fifteen hundred pounds that 
they paid him, avoided all expense, and had large grants for 
nothing. No wonder that they were willing to transfer their 
deed to the general assembly. Now, with the lands in their legal 
possession, they proceeded to grant many townships to peti- 
tioners, always reserving a share for each one of the proprietors. 
A list of thirty-one petitions is on record, sent in before 1749, 
from about all the settlements in New Hampshire. The pro- 
prietors ofifered a farm of one hundred acres to any family or 
single man who would emigrate from Europe and settle on waste 
land in New Hampshire, and fifty acres to the agents for every 
such settler they secured.^ 

In making grants of townships the proprietors took good 
care of themselves. The grants were often without fees and 
always without quit-rents. Did they, then, give all their land 
away? Not quite. They reserved in every township a lot of 
large size for each proprietor. We find a list of lots owned by 
George Jaffrey in 1788, in forty-one towns and gores. The list 
comprises fifteen thousand six hundred and ninety-four acres, 
and it is reasonable to suppose that all the proprietors fared as 
well. What was this land worth? Almost nothing when the 
townships were granted, and that is one reason why lots were 
given to settlers gratuitously. It was the settlement and de- 
velopment of the townships that made land therein valuable. 
The unearned increment is what made the proprietors rich. 
Every settler added value to their lots, and they were shrewd 
enough to state in the charters, that the lands reserved by the 
proprietors should be free from taxes, till sold or occupied. Thus 
some of them continued to ripen for fifty years and then must 
have been sold for a good price. 

2 N. H. State Papers, XXIX. 252. 

3 N. H. State Papers, XXIX. 278. 


In each town a lot was reserved for the first settled minister, 
another for a parsonage and a third for a school. The grantees 
were required, within a limited time, to erect a meeting house 
and mills, make roads and settle a minister. The settlers would 
not have fared any better, perhaps not so well, had the general 
assembly purchased Mason's claim. The proprietors had many 
opposers, who would not admit the validity of Mason's claim 
and consequently would not recognize the legal rights of the 
proprietors, but the reins of government were in the hands of 
the latter and of their friends, who stood nearest to the king. 
The settlers in the townships that had been previously granted 
by the government of Massachusetts were quieted, usually with- 
out any recompense. 

There was trouble about fixing the western boundary of the 
Masonian grants and this is well told in the following citation : 

From early measurements it was discovered that only a part of Rindge 
and a very small part of Jaffrey were included within the patent, and that 
Dublin, Fitzwilliam, Marlborough, Nelson, Stoddard, and Washington were 
entirely outside of it. Yet all these towns had been granted by the Masonian 
Proprietors, and described as "lying within Mason's Grant." Finding they 
had exceeded the limits of their charter, the Masonian proprietors laid claim 
to this extraneous territory with a system of expansion which was equal to 
the emergency, and by which, during many years of controversy, they suc- 
cessfully maintained the control of the lands and townships in dispute. 
They contended that the original grant to Mason described an extent "of 
sixty miles from the sea on each side of New Hampshire, and a line to 
cross over from the end of one line of sixty miles to the end of the other" ; 
they therefore claimed that this cross line should be a curvt, because no 
other line would preserve the distance of sixty miles from the sea. In 
other words, they claimed their western boundary should be the arc of a 
circle with a radius of sixty miles, and whose center was at the sea. How- 
ever ingenious this argument may appear, it was, without doubt, an after- 
thought, advanced for the occasion, to temporarily fortify their claim to the 
controverted townships. They also conveniently fixed upon the southwest 
corner of Fitzwilliam as the termination of sixty miles from the sea, by 
which, with an accommodating elasticity of the curved line, they success- 
fully embraced the eight Monadnock townships and others to the north of 

The Revolution, which transformed the province into a state, 
put an end to the dispute with the Masonian Proprietors. The 

4 Hist, of Rindge by Hon. Ezra S. Stearns, pp. 44-45. 


legislature, after a hearing, decided to run a line of sixty miles 
from the Atlantic on the southern and northwestern boundaries 
of the state and from the ends of these lines to run a straight line 
across, thus determining by legal enactment the western bound- 
ary of the Masonian patent, the only reasonable conclusion. 
This straight line was ninety-three and a half miles long, from 
a mile and one-fourth east of the southwest corner of Rindge, 
and extended north thirty-nine degrees east. Then the Masonian 
proprietors bought of the state, for forty thousand dollars in 
public securities of the state and eight hundred dollars in specie, 
all the disputed land lying between this straight line and their 
imaginary curved line, which never could be precisely located, 
for when the surveyors tried to draw a curve from the western 
extremity, it would never meet the curve drawn from the north- 
ern extremity. The straight line of the state was run by Joseph 
Blanchard in 1787, son of that Joseph Blanchard who had been 
long before the agent of the Masonian proprietors and in whose 
name grants of townships had been made. 

The land-grabbing propensity of the early Masonian pro- 
prietors seems to have been unbounded. Not even a broken 
curve, drawn about as they pleased, included enough. One of 
them wrote to agent Thomlinson in London, in 1750, saying 
that agreements had been made with all the towns but one, that 
had been previously granted by the government of Massachu- 
setts, to hold the balance of such townships after having de- 
livered up to the proprietors from one-fifth to one-quarter of the 
land therein, and new townships were granted out of the waste 
lands with a similar reservation. The proprietors thought they 
were serving their "King and Country" by so doing and the 
hope was expressed that their action would be "looked on in that 
light at home, & considering the Pains we have been at & the 
Progress made, wou'd it be unlikely that the Crown wou'd make 
(if petitioned for) us a Grant at the head of this Claim from the 
West Line to the North, that is, a Curve Line Parallel to our 
Former, of Twenty miles deep or of Thirty or fourty Miles, so 
as to meet Connecticut & so to go half Way over to our north 
Line, as we find there is some fine Land in this last Description." 
Thus they wished to take in all the southern half of the present 
State of New Hampshire, that had not been previously granted. 


To this Mr. Thomlinson replied that he thought "it would be the 
wrongest Step that Could be taken." Instead he urgently ad- 
vised them to buy the claim of the heirs and assigns of Samuel 
Allen, whose right had been conceded in the charter given to 
Massachusetts by William and Mary, and who "are so far from 
Being a Sleep, that they are at this very time in treaty with 
Some Gentlemen here for the sale of their Said right." No, he 
said, get your legal rights acknowledged first and controversies 
settled; then the king will, doubtless, sanction any encroach- 
ments you may be pleased to make, so long as the province is 
getting well settled.^ 

About forty years passed away before a final settlement 
was made with the heirs and assigns of Samuel Allen. Their 
claim was doubtful, yet it had foundation enough on which to 
base law suits and occasion uncertainty. Therefore in 1790 Gen. 
John Sullivan and others, as agents, efifected a sale of all right 
of the Allen heirs and assigns to the then claimers of eleven 
shares of the Masonian proprietors, for five pounds in money 
and the reservation of eight thousand five hundred acres, scat- 
tered in different towns and gores. Thus the proprietors "re- 
stored that which they took not away," to end the struggle 
for conquest and spoils that was going on in the courts.® 

It seems to have been the settled policy of provinces, town- 
ships, combinations of men, and individuals to get as large 
grants of land as possible and then expand the boundaries. 
Hence the principle business of courts was to settle land claims. 
Speculators saw the future possibilities. The wise ones, the 
seers, knew that they were acquiring valuable properties. The 
growth of the country in population would surely make them 
rich. Besides, there were valuable timber, large water powers, 
and perhaps rich mines. Let the king have the white pines for 
the royal navy. It would cost more than they were worth to 
get them out to sea from far inland. There would never be 
any more land, but there would be many more inhabitants; 
therefore, get land. Better than to buy it was to claim it by 
getting there first. Let a part of it pay for the develop- 
ment of the other part ; then sell at advanced prices. 

5 N. H. State Papers, XXIX. 280-282. 
6N. H. State Papers, XXIX. 345-350. 


Such was the plan of the Masonian proprietors, and it 
worked well —for them, and possibly as well as any other 
plan would have worked for the settlers of New Hampshire 
and their posterity. 

Chapter XVI 


Chapter XVI 


Departure of Governor Belcher — Appointment of Benning Wentworth as 
Governor — The Old Wentworth Mansion — Places that Served as a State 
House — Opposition between the Governor and the House — Attempts to 
Oust Governor Wentworth — Correspondence of Richard Waldron and 
Isaac Royall— New Hampshire's Part in the Siege of Louisburg— Col. 
William Vaughan — Plans for the Invasion of Canada — The New Towns 
on the Connecticut — Fort Dummer and the Fort at Number 4 — Capt. 
Phinehas Stevens— Surprises and Massacres by the Indians— Disastrous 
Expedition to Crown Point— Attacks of Indians in Hopkinton and Con- 
toocook— Defense of Rumford and Massacre of the Bradleys— Victims 
at Rochester — Improvement in Indian Warfare— Offensive War pays 
better than Defensive. 

IN the tw^o preceding- chapters it seemed better to group 
events logically rather than chronologically. It is now neces- 
sary to go back to the closing- year of Governor Belcher's 
administration. The part he took in the settlement of the bound- 
ary line made him unpopular both in Massachusetts and in 
New Hampshire. He had quarrelled with his lieutenant, David 
Dunbar, and there was continual opposition between him and 
the New Hampshire house of representatives. He expressed 
his mind too freely in correspondence and utterances. He was 
an aristocrat and wanted unquestioning obedience to his advices. 
The only reason why he tolerated a house of representatives 
was, that they alone could initiate the assessment of taxes and 
the granting of money. When they would not do as ordered, 
he dissolved the assembly, and the people generally re-elected 
the former members to serve in the new house. 

Effort was made to quiet opposition and prolong his term 
of office by arousing- interest in the war with Spain. It was 
proposed to raise a company of one hundred men and to furnish 
a transport to take them to Virginia and thence to Cuba. A 
captain was appointed and he had beating orders to raise troops 



in New Hampshire, but nobody was willing to volunteer. On 
this failure there was a vote of disapproval in the house, and 
their agent in London made use of it against Governor Belcher. 
His mistakes and his misfortunes were arrayed as arguments 
against his administration. Falsehood and forgery were em- 
ployed to misrepresent him to the king's ministry, where he 
had friends loth to set him aside. The will of the people proved 
to be law even to the chief rulers, and so Governor Belcher was 
sacrificed. He had given up mercantile business in order to 
devote all his time to the duties of his office in the two provinces, 
and he expended out of his private revenues much more than 
he received as salary and gifts. He certainly did not seek to 
enrich himself and his friends by exercise of gubernatorial power. 
If his enemies had been as frank and open as he, there might 
have been more harmony and a longer term of service. He felt 
grieved that at the age of sixty, after long and faithful service 
to the king, he should be deprived of the means of supporting 
his family, and his confidence in the justice of the English 
government was shaken. He repaired to court and personally 
advocated his claims upon royal favor, thereby securing for 
himself the post of governor of New Jersey, which position he 
held till his death in Elizabeth, New Jersey, August 31, 1757. 
His one faithful friend throughout all his trials, as shown by 
his correspondence, was secretary Richard Waldron of Ports- 
mouth, to whom he wrote in more familiar and unguarded style 
than to any other. 

In May, 1741, commissions were made out to William Shir- 
ley as governor of Massachusetts and to Benning Wentworth as 
governor of New Hampshire, thus completely and finally separa- 
ting the two provinces. Benning Wentworth, son of the popular 
Lieut.-Gov. Wentworth, was born in Portsmouth July 24, 1696. 
He was graduated at Harvard college in 1715 and became one of 
the leading merchants of Portsmouth. His business took him 
frequently to England and Spain, and he thus made acquaintance 
with men of influence in political circles. He had served as a 
member of the house and of the council for some years and 
knew well the state of affairs in the province. His failure to 
receive payment for a cargo of oak timber delivered at Cadiz 
and the loss of his ship on her return voyage is said to have 


reduced him to bankruptcy, and some creditors in London gave 
him trouble. Mr. Thomlinson there befriended him and wrote 
to persons in Portsmouth, urging them to rally to the assistance 
of Mr. Wentworth and especially that his brothers would send 
him money. The war with Spain prevented his recovery of 
what was due him there, estimated to be fifty-six thousand 
dollars. The English government at first supported his claims 
and later may have felt under some obligation to measurably 
recompense him for his loss. The expense of procuring his com- 
mission, in the way, as would now be said, of lobbying, fees and 
tips, was three hundred pounds, which Thomlinson secured for 
him in London and which was repaid by friends in Portsmouth, 
Thomlinson assuring them that he had something in view for 
Mr. Wentworth that would enable him to pay all his debts. This 
proved to be the office of general surveyor of the king's woods 
in America, an office which David Dunbar was induced to re- 
sign on receipt of two thousand pounds. The office paid what 
was equivalent to about eight hundred pounds per annum, out 
of which four deputies had to be paid. With a salary of five 
hundred pounds additional as governor, together with some 
presents and large grants of land he managed to redeem his for- 
tunes and after ten years or so to build himself one of the oddest 
and most spacious mansions in New England. 

This famous house is about two miles from old Strawberry 
Bank, the present city of Portsmouth, and situated near the 
shore at Little Harbor. Who can tell the style of architecture? 
Some have described it as a "noble pile" and an "architectural 
freak." It looks as though additions had been made from time 
to time as afterthoughts. Originally it had fifty-two rooms, 
but a portion of the house has been removed, leaving only forty- 
five rooms. Here he married, as his second wife, his young 
housekeeper, Martha Hilton, whose parentage has never been 
learned. The house and the marriage are the subjects of Long- 
fellow's poem, "Lady Wentworth," in "Tales of a Wayside Inn." 

Here he died October 14th, 1770, after a quarter of a 
century's service in the gubernatorial office. Here he is said to 
have held court, but whether this served as state house, or meet- 
ing place of the general assembly, is in great doubt. The coun- 
cilors without question often consulted with him here. Records 


show that in 1745-8 Mrs. Sarah Priest was paid four pounds 
and ten shillings "for the use of her two rooms for council and 
representatives." The use of her rooms is last mentioned in 
1753, and that year there was a vote in the council to build a 
brick state house eighty feet long and thirty wide. Sarah Col- 
lins married Thomas Priest in Portsmouth December i, 1720, 
and she administered his estate in 1740. He is called mariner 
and she shopkeeper. Legal suits show that her principle stock 
in trade was rum, which she bought by the barrel and retailed. 
It was a convenient place for meetings of the legislature, an 
"ordinary" with spacious rooms and a bar for liquid refresh- 
ments, then thought to be quite a necessary accompaniment for 
the transaction of important business. From 1755 to 1762 at 
least a house was rented, for the use of the assembly, of Captain 
David Horney and his widow, Hannah Horney, innkeeper, who 
was daughter of Joseph Buss and grandaughter of the Rev. 
John Buss of Oyster River. Many votes were passed about the 
purchase or erection of a state house, but it was not finished till 
the year 1765, a long, two-story, wooden building, a part of 
which is standing on Court street, removed from the "parade," 
its first site. 

Governor Benning Wentworth was careful to conserve all 
the dignity and power that belonged to his office, on the plea 
of guarding the prerogatives of the crown, by putting a curb 
on the house of representatives. It was the old question, 
whether the people should serve the ruler, or the ruler should 
serve the people. Whence flows governmental authority? Con- 
duct expressed different answers. The house thought they had 
a right to choose a recorder of deeds; the governor and council 
claimed a share in his election. They yielded to the choice of 
the house, Joshua Pierce holding that office for a long time. 
When the house chose Richard Waldron for speaker, the gov- 
ernor promptly vetoed the choice. Waldron had been suspended 
as a member of the council on account of his friendship for 
Governor Belcher and his opposition to Governor Wentworth. 
The house denied the right of the governor to veto their choice 
of speaker. They had elected Waldron before admitting to 
membership certain representatives from recently chartered 
towns. It looks as though Governor Wentworth tried to pack 





the legislature in his own favor by appointing several new 
councilors and securing the election of representatives from new- 
towns, without any authorization from the house of representa- 
tives. The house refused to admit representatives from South 
Hampton, Methuen, Chester, Haverhill and Rumford, because 
the house had never taken any action enabling those towns to 
thus take part in the government of the province. The governor 
had sent precepts to those towns without consulting the house. 
This led to a deadlock in legislation which continued nearly 
two years. The governor, by advice of council, kept adjourning 
and proroguing the house for short periods, urging them from 
time to time to choose a speaker and proceed to business. They 
were as firm as he was stubborn. They were contending for as 
large a measure as possible of self-government; the governor 
and council were determined to rule the province, in the name of 
the king. If the governor could create new towns at will and 
call their representatives to the house, if he could negative their 
choice of speaker, if he could send them all home whenever he 
chose and order a new election, how much self-government had 
the people? Nevertheless, the correspondence of that time with 
Mr. Thomlinson, their agent in London, shows that the action of 
the governor was regarded as within his rights. Representative 
government in the provinces was in an infantile condition, and 
a house of representatives had less power than the English 
house of commons. After two years the governor dissolved the 
house and a new election was ordered. Nearly the same per- 
sons were chosen by the towns, and among them was Richard 
Waldron from Hampton, but he refused to sit. The question 
of the admission of the representatives from the new towns was 
indefinitely postponed. Those sent were allowed to vote for 
choice of speaker and Mechech Weare of Hampton Falls was 
chosen to that office. 

During those two years of opposition attempts were made to 
get rid of Governor Wentworth. Some wanted Sir William 
Pepperrell appointed in his stead, while Richard Waldron, 
Henry Sherburne and some other members of the house were 
seeking to have Colonel Isaac Royall of Medford, Massachusetts, 
appointed to that office. His principal qualifications seem to 
have been that he was ambitious for prominence and had the 


money needed to secure the coveted place. He expressed him- 
self as willing to help the oppressed people of New Hampshire 
to gain their liberties; later on, when the colonies were strug- 
gling for real liberty, Royall fled as a tory. He was a merchant 
and large speculator in land. Royalston, Massachusetts, and 
Royalsborough, Maine, were named for him. The name of the 
latter town was changed to Durham, when Col. Royall sided 
against the patriots of the Revolution. 

The letters of Waldron to Royall show an embittered spirit 
as well as a keen intellect. He calls Benning Wentworth a 
tyrant and an ignoramus and alludes to him as "the Don" and 
"Diego," thinking perhaps that Wentworth had caught the 
spirit of the Spaniards in business dealings with them. Colonel 
Royall wanted to know what offices would be at his disposal, 
wherewith he might reward his friends, if he were appointed 
governor, and Secretary Waldron replied as follows, showing 
that office-seekers had not so strong allurements in those times 
as now, yet aspirants were not lacking: 

The General Court appoints the Register of Deeds, claiming the right 
by prescription, and the Superior and Inferior Courts appoint their Clerks 
by authority of the law, but those Clerks are generally recommended by a 
letter from the Governor. . . . The Judges of the Superior Court 
have no salary, and each saves perhaps 5 or io£ a year new Tenor out of 
their Fees ; the Judges of the Inferior Court may each probably save about 
25i a year. The Secretarj^'s allowance and honest perquisites may amount 
to about yo£ a year. The Treasurer who is also Commissary makes good 
earnings in Time of war; I cannot guess what, but in peace I believe his 
office isn't worth more than 40 or 5o£ a year, the Clerk of the Superior 
Court's office is worth about 3oi a year, and the Register of Probate's the 
same. The Clerk of the Inferior Court's office and the Sheriff's are the two 
best offices in the government, and are probably worth near I25£ a year each. 
The Judge Probate's office is worth from 20 to 25^ a year.l 

The governor insisted on having a regular salary, and was a 
little disappointed that it was not made at least six hundred 
pounds. Instead the general assembly voted him two hundred 
and fifty pounds, proclamation money, to be paid out of the 
excise, or liquor-licenses, and after twenty-five thousand pounds 
in bills of credit had been issued on loan for ten years, they 
added two hundred and fifty pounds more, to be paid out of the 

1 N. H. Prov. Papers, VI. 60. 


interest on the loan. But this was not all. The assembly voted 
him five hundred pounds out of the money raised for the West 
India expedition "towards the charge he has been at in coming 
to the government &c," and at the same time he was presented 
with one hundred and twenty-five pounds, bills of credit. Also 
the sum of one hundred pounds was voted "for his Excellency's 
use to hire a house to live in for the year 1742 from the 25th 
March Current." Considering the value of money at that time 
it must be concluded that the governor's relatives and friends 
saw him very decently provided for.^ 

It appears from the records that Gov. Benning Wentworth 
lived in the Brick House, the only brick house in Portsmouth 
at that time, into which he moved about the year 1753. This 
house was built by Archibald McPhaedris and is now known 
as the Warner house. Efforts w^ere made to purchase this for 
a provincial house, or governor's residence, but no agreement 
could be made as to the price. House rent for Governor Went- 
worth was paid after he built his private mansion at Little 
Harbor, which leads to the inference that as governor he lived 
in town at the expense of the province for house-rent, while 
Little Harbor was his summer house or rural residence.^ 

The opposition to Governor Benning Wentworth seems to 
have been confined to members of the house of representatives 
and a few others of Portsmouth, under the leadership of Secre- 
tary Richard Waldron. The people throughout the province 
cared little about political disputes and the extent of the gov- 
ernor's authority. They were more interested in the war with 
France and in the protection of their frontiers against the 
Indians. Early in Wentworth's administration the siege of 
Louisburg stirred the hearts of New Hampshire men. This 

2 N. H. Prov. Papers, V. 623. 

3 N. H. Prov. Papers, V. passim. The governor informed the House that 
the ways were so bad that he could not come up to Town and should be glad 
that a number of the House and of the Council would come down and con- 
fer with him upon the affairs. This was March 22, 1753, and evidently he 
was then living in his mansion at Little Harbor. 

Again, January 2, 1754, "his Excellency desired the House to wait upon 
his Excellency at the Council Chamber, which was at the dwelling house of 
the late Coll. Moore, deceased." N. H. Prov. Papers, VI. 195, 231. 

Again, June 10, 1755, the governor told the House that he had left a letter 
from Governor Shirley at Little Harbor and would send it up tomorrow. 
Id., p. 392. 



expedition has been described by Dr. Belknap with great fullness 
and particularity, almost as though it belonged solely to the 
history of New Hampshire. The truth is that Massachusetts, 
with the province of Maine then belonging to her, took the lead- 
ing part in that expedition. The leadership of Sir William 
Pepperrell and the participation of three Maine regiments rather 
eclipsed the glory of New Hampshire in that campaign. Of the 
ten regiments, comprising 4070 men, Massachusetts furnished 
eight regiments, including the three from Maine, and Connecti- 
cut one regiment of 516 men, leaving only one regiment to 
New Hampshire and that a small one of only 304 men, com- 
manded by Col. Samuel Moore of Portsmouth. About one 
hundred and fifty more men from New Hampshire are said to 
have enlisted in regiments from Massachusetts, but there is no 
certainty about this number. After the surrender of Louisburg 
New Hampshire sent 115 more men as a reinforcement to its 
regiment. In all New Hampshire had from 450 to 500 men 
engaged in that expedition, about one-eighth of the entire force. 
They sailed from Portsmouth in advance of the others, under 
convoy of an armed sloop commanded by Captain John Fernald 
and having thirty men. They arrived at Canso the first of 
April 1745, nearly a week before the Massachusetts troops. The 
surgeon of the New Hampshire regiment was Matthew Thorn- 
ton, afterward one of the signers of the Declaration of 
Independence. A muster roll shows that the lieutenant-colonel 
of the New Hampshire regiment was Nathaniel Meserve and 
the major was Ezekiel Oilman, while the captains were Samuel 
Whitton, Thomas W. Waldron, True Dudley, John Tufton 
Mason, William Seward, Daniel Ladd, Henry Sherburne, John 
Fernald, Samuel Hale, Jacob Tilton and Edward Williams.* 

The expedition against Louisburg was suggested to Gov- 
ernor William Shirley of Massachusetts by William Vaughan 
and was at once advocated by the former with enthusiasm. 
Vaughan went to Portsmouth and soon stirred up interest 
among the people of New Hampshire, who voted men and 
supplies with readiness, fifty barrels of gunpowder and masts 
for men of war. William Vaughan was born in Portsmouth 
September 12, 1703, son of Lieutenant-Governor George 

4 N. H. Prov. Papers, Vol. V., p. 368. 


Vaughan. He was graduated at Harvard college in 1722 and 
soon after he launched out into an extensive business in fishing 
and lumbering, on the coast of Maine. He had his fishing and 
trading post on the island of Martinicus, off the entrance to 
Penobscot Bay, and he set up saw and grist mills at the outlet 
of Damariscotta Pond, where he had a company of seventy men, 
women and children that he took there in his service from 
Dover, Somersworth, Oyster River, Exeter, Kittery and 
Scarborough. Here he built a fort one hundred feet square and 
had very extensive grants of land from the David Dunbar that 
we have met before. Vaughan went with the expedition to 
Louisburg and took a very prominent part in the siege, with 
rank of Lieutenant Colonel. It was very early in the siege that 
Vaughan had the good fortune to be detailed, with four hundred 
men, many of them from New Hampshire, to reconnoiter north 
of the town and harbor. Here he found warehouses filled with 
naval stores and wholly undefended. Having no way of trans- 
porting them, he set them on fire, and the smoke of tar and 
turpentine rolled toward the Royal Battery. The French sup- 
posing that they were being attacked in force abandoned the 
battery, having hastily and ineffectually spiked their guns. 
Vaughan had sent back to camp all but thirteen men, whom he 
retained as a bodyguard. The next morning these crept up 
toward the Royal Battery and to their surprise found it deserted. 
At once Vaughan sent the following note to the commander, 
Colonel William Pepperrell : "May it please your Honor to be 
informed that with the grace of God and the courage of about 
thirteen men I entered this place about nine o'clock and am 
waiting here for a reinforcement and a flag." 

Thus without the firing of a musket thirty pieces of cannon 
were captured and were soon doing effective service in bombard- 
ing other fortifications and the town. Although the Massachu- 
setts forces had no cannon larger than twenty-two pounders, 
they took along with them forty-two pound balls, expecting to 
capture French cannon to fit them, in which they were not 
disappointed. The hope of taking the strongest fortress in the 
western world with the weapons of the enemy, — a fortress that 
had cost twenty years of labor and the expenditure of six 
millions of dollars, — indicates perhaps more courage and pre- 


sumption than military science. Governor Shirley had worked 
out in his law office a detailed plan of just how the thing was 
going to be done by surprise, and it is needless to say that his 
plan was not followed. The land forces under Colonel Pepper- 
rell did most of the fighting; the ships commanded by 
Commodore Peter Warren succeeded in capturing the Vigilant, 
a French ship of sixty-four guns and manned with five hundred 
men. It carried stores of all kinds, and its capture was a great 
loss to the besieged. The Vigilant was at once manned by 
Colonel Moore's New Hampshire regiment, taken from the land 
forces at the urgent demand of Commodore Warren, and a 
naval assault was planned. But the fortress surrendered on the 
sixteenth of June, just forty-nine days from the arrival of the 
colonial forces. 

Colonel William Pepperrell was knighted for this exploit, 
and William Vaughan thought himself deserving of some honor 
and went to London in search of recognition, but died of small- 
pox before his hopes were realized. The New Hampshire troops 
brought back a bell, which was presented to Queen's Chapel in 
Portsmouth. Later it was recast and is now in the tower of 
St. John's church, reminding with peaceful tones the inquisitive 
hearer of what valor without discipline can accomplish, when 
favored by Providence. This expedition united the colonists 
and encouraged them to feel that they could take care of them^ 
selves without the aid, and possibly in spite of the opposition, 
of old England. The treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle restored the 
fortress to the French and another siege was necessary after a 
few years, yet the efforts and sacrifices of the people of New 
England were not in vain. They helped to determine the 
character of western civilization and to bring all America under 
the sway of English people. The cost to New Hampshire was 
about a dozen men, who died of wounds and sickness, and the 
expenditure of 26,489 pounds in money. The province was 
reimbursed by England to the extent of 16,355 pounds. The 
very drums which led the triumphal march into Louisburg 
sounded in the ears of the patriots at Bunker Hill.^ 

5 It has been thought too remotely connected with the history of New- 
Hampshire to enter into details of this remarkable siege. The work has 
been repeatedly and exhaustively done. See Parsons' Life of General 
Pepperrell; the First Siege of Louisburg, by Henry M. Baker; the minute 


Elated by the capture of Louisburg Governor Shirley of 
Massachusetts conceived the larger plan of invading Canada 
and bringing all the French possessions in America under the 
British flag. He went to Louisburg and consulted vi^ith Colonel 
William Pepperrell and Commodore Peter Warren about the 
project. Thence he wrote to the British ministry, and the 
result was that in the spring of 1746 a circular letter was sent 
by the secretary of state to all the governors in America as far 
south as Virginia, asking them to raise all the men they could 
and hold them in readiness for marching orders. The plan was 
that troops raised in New England should join the British fleet 
at Louisburg and thence proceed to the conquest of Quebec, 
while the troops from New York and other provinces should 
march by way of Albany against Crown Point and Montreal. 
Governor Wentworth laid the plan before the general assembly 
and it was voted that in case ten thousand men were raised 
for such expeditions New Hampshire could probably furnish 
five hundred of them. The garrison at Annapolis Royal, in 
Nova Scotia, having been besieged by the French, Governor 
Shirley and Commodore Warren wrote to Governor Wentworth, 
asking New Hampshire to send her contingent for the Canada 
expedition for the relief of that place. The request was agreed 
to in council, and two vessels, the sloop Warren and the brig- 
antine St. Clair, with provisions and stores and as many men 
as they could accommodate, were held in readiness to go 
eastward, sailors having been enlisted to man the vessels. About 
eight hundred men enlisted, under command of Colonel Theo- 
dore Atkinson. But there was unaccountable delay; no orders 
arrived from England. The men waited all summer. Then 
the plan was changed, to go to Albany and join the expedition 
against Crown Point. The small pox broke out at Albany and 
put an end to that plan. Again they were ordered to Nova 
Scotia, and in November, 1746, two hundred men were sent from 
Portsmouth to Annapolis. They accomplished nothing, sailed 
across the bay of Fundy and entered St. John's river, where 
the commander of one sloop lost eight of his men by mistaking 
a French skow for a Rhode Island transport. The sloop, instead 

account given in Belknap's Hist, of New Hampshire; and especially Louis- 
bourg, an Historical Sketch, by Joseph Plimsoll Edwards, read before the 
Nova Scotia Historical Society and published at Halifax in 1895. 


of returning to Annapolis, sailed back to Portsmouth. The 
Massachusetts forces, under Colonel Arthur Noble, were de- 
feated and captured, after loss of sixty killed and fifty wounded. 

Atkinson's regiment marched to lake Winnepiseogee, built 
a fort there and encamped for the winter. There was little to 
do besides scouting, fishing and hunting. No enemy was 
encountered. Many soldiers deserted. Discipline was lax. Gov- 
ernor Shirley wanted the New Hampshire men sent in the dead 
of winter against the Indian village of St. Francis, by way of 
the Connecticut river, but better counsels prevailed. The fol- 
lowing spring the troops were disbanded and thus ended a 
futile campaign. There were too many advisers and no con- 
certed action under proper leadership. 

Meanwhile the Indians were ravaging the frontiers, insti- 
gated by French leaders in Canada. Their usual procedure was 
to burn the houses and mills, kill and scalp the men, and carry 
into captivity women and children, for sale in Canada. Lieu- 
tenant Governor Phipps of Massachusetts, in the absence of 
Governor Shirley, declared war against the eastern and Cana- 
dian Indians, and this proclamation was seconded by the 
governor and council at Portsmouth.^ 

In 1736 the general court of Massachusetts granted four 
new townships on the east side of the Connecticut river above 
Northfield. These were six miles square and were known as 
numbers i, 2, 3 and 4, corresponding to Chesterfield, Westmore- 
land, Walpole and Charlestown at the present time. By the 
settlement of the boundary line all these towns, together with 
the upper part of Northfield, now Hinsdale, became a part of 
the territory of New Hampshire. For the defense of this region 
the government of Massachusetts built a fort, in 1724. It stood 
on the west bank of the Connecticut river, just within the 
southerly limits of the present town of Brattleboro, Vermont. 
It was named Fort Dummer, in honor of the then governor of 
Massachusetts.*^ It was built of hewn logs, dove-tailed at the 

6N. H. Prov. Papers, V. 105. 

■^ History of Northfield, by Temple and Sheldon, p. 200. A footnote to 
N. H. Prov. Papers, V. 182, says that Fort Dummer was on the east side 
of the Connecticut river, within the limits of the present town of Hinsdale, 
N. H. Griffin's Hist, of Keene, p. 35, says that it stood "on the west bank of 
the Connecticut river, in a narrow gorge between the hills, about one mile 
below the present bridge leading to Hinsdale." 


corners, and was one hundred and eighty feet square. It served 
in time of peace as a truck-house, for trade with the Indians, 
and houses were built for the accommodation of the Indians. 
Six chiefs held commissions from colonel down to lieutenant and 
were in the pay of Massachusetts. They were always ready to 
guard the fort in time of peace, but invariably withdrew in time 
of war, to reconduct thither savages to burn and plunder the 
places they knew so well. On the eastern side of the Connec- 
ticut river and about sixty rods from its bank, on the trail lead- 
ing from Northfield to Fort Dummer, Colonel Ebenezer 
Hinsdale built a fort in 1743. This was in the present town of 
Hinsdale. Block houses, or garrison houses, were built by 
Daniel Shattuck and Orlando Bridgman. There were also forts 
in the new townships, that at number 4, or Charlestown, being 
particularly strong and well defended. 

Governor Shirley made request of Governor Wentworth 
that Fort Dummer might be garrisoned by New Hampshire 
troops. The house of representatives at first refused to grant 
this request, needing all the troops and means at command to 
defend other portions of the frontier. Fort Dummer was fifty 
miles from other settlements in New Hampshire. It was more 
of a defense to Massachusetts than to New Hampshire and 
therefore the former ought to care for it. It would be better, 
were they able, to put a garrison at Number 4, twenty-five miles 
further north. In fact if now the defense of Fort Dummer were 
undertaken, the protection of the whole valley of the Connec- 
ticut, above Northfield, would fall on New Hampshire, that had 
neither men nor money to spare. It was a question, too, whether 
the new towns on the Connecticut could be taxed for their own 
protection. Therefore it would be better to leave them to their 
own resources and the aid of Massachusetts. This was not 
selfish heartlessness on the part of New Hampshire, but good 
military strategy. It were better that those towns should be 
deserted during the war. Moreover, it was only just that 
Massachusetts should defend her own frontier, especially since 
New Hampshire paid all the expenses of Fort William and Mary, 
whereby Kittery and Berwick, belonging to Massachusetts, were 
defended. However, Governor Wentworth was alarmed because 
the lords of trade had threatened to restore Fort Dummer with 


a district contiguous thereto to Massachusetts, if New Hamp- 
shire refused to guard it. He dissolved the house and ordered 
a new election of representatives, urging the same duty upon 
them, and Andrew Wiggin, ex-speaker of the house, wrote a 
letter to the representatives, showing them that it would result 
in great loss of territory and favor of the king, were they now 
to refuse the king's request.^ Consequently on the fifteenth of 
June, 1745, the house voted, twelve to four, to receive Fort Dum- 
mer, to make provisions for its support, and that twenty men 
be enlisted or impressed to serve for six months as a garrison 
to the fort. When the colonies were partially reimbursed by 
England for the expenses of the war, the agents of Massachu- 
setts sought to have deducted from the share to be paid to New 
Hampshire the amount of expense Massachusetts had incurred 
in the defense of this place, and to have the same paid to 
Massachusetts instead, but the attempt was frustrated through 
the efforts of agent Thomlinson in London. Until this day it 
has been too much the custom of towns and states to shift their 
financial burdens upon their neighbors, whenever a legal pre- 
text could be found. 

In the spring of 1745 the Indians began prowling the forests 
and appearing on the edges of the settlements. On the twenty- 
fifth of March they burned the house of the Rev. Timothy 
Harrington at Lower Ashuelot, now Swanzey. On the fifth of 
July a small party of Indians captured William Phipps as he 
was hoeing corn at the southwest corner of Great Meadow, the 
name for what is now Westmoreland. Two Indians took Phipps 
into the woods about half a mile, when one went back for 
something he had left, and Phipps. watching his opportunity, 
struck down the other Indian with his hoe. Then with the 
disabled Indian's gun he shot down the other as he came up 
the hill on his return. In going to the fort Phipps unfortun- 
ately encountered three other Indians, who seized, killed and 
scalped him. Five days later the Indians appeared at Upper 
Ashuelot, now Keene, and killed Deacon Josiah Fisher, as he 
was driving his cow to pasture. He was found dead and 
scalped in the road, shot, as was supposed, by an Indian con- 
cealed behind a log. 

8 N. H. Prov. Papers, V. 308-9. 


Three months passed without further molestation. On the 
eleventh of October the fort at Great Meadow was assaulted by 
twelve Indians according to Belknap, and by eighty according 
to the History of Northfield, and they took captive Nehemiah 
How, as he was cutting wood about forty rods from the fort. 
He was hurried off to a swamp and pinioned. His captors were 
seen and fired on from the fort, one of their number being killed 
and another wounded. The cattle in the vicinity of the fort 
were killed and their hides were carried away. David Rugg and 
Thomas Baker were coming down the river in a canoe. Rugg 
was killed and scalped, but Baker got away. Three men by 
sculking under the river bank got safe to the fort. One of these 
was Caleb How, the prisoner's son. Opposite Number 4 the 
Indians made their captive write his name on a piece of bark 
and left it there. How was taken to Crown Point and thence to 
Quebec, where he was treated humanely by the French but 
died in prison, 25th May, 1747. He is described as a useful man 
and much lamented. He left a narrative of his experiences in 

During the following winter a few soldiers were stationed 
at each of the forts along the Connecticut river and all was 
quiet till spring. In March Captain Phinehas Stevens set out, 
with fifty-nine men, to save the fort at Number 4 from falling 
into the enemy's hands and arrived in time. On the nineteenth 
of April, 1746, about forty French and Indians, under the com- 
mand of Ensign de Neverville, who had been watching the town, 
waylaid three workmen who were going with a team of four oxen 
to the mill to fetch boards. The oxen were killed, and their 
tongues were cut out and carried away as choice morsels. The 
men. Captain John Spafford, Lieutenant Isaac Parker and 
Stephen Farnsworth, were carried to Canada and after some 
time were permitted to return to Boston under a flag of truce. 
The saw and grist mills at Number 4 were burned. 

The fort at Number 4 was regarrisoned with sixty men, 
thirty of whom remained in the fort while the others were scout- 
ing, and thus the two parties took turns in guarding and scout- 
ing. New Hampshire offered a bounty of fifty pounds for an 
Indian's scalp, and Massachusetts offered seventy-five pounds, 
and eighty pounds for a live male captive over twelve years old. 


About fifty Indians planned to capture the fort at Upper 
Ashuelot, now Keene, on the twenty-third of April, intending 
to rush into the fort just as the people were going out to their 
work in the morning. Ephraim Dorman was abroad early and 
gave the alarm. Two Indians concealed in a thicket sprang 
upon him. He knocked one of them down with a blow and tore 
the blanket from another, so making his escape. The com- 
mander of the fort, Captain William Symes, was reading the 
Bible at morning devotions. He ordered all to help those 
outside to get in. John Bullard was shot in the back as he was 
running from his barn to the fort. He fell near the door, was 
carried in and expired in a few hours. The wife of Daniel 
McKenney had gone to milk the cows. Being old and corpulent 
she could not walk fast, and the Indian whom Dorman had half 
stripped ran up behind her and plunged a long knife into her 
back. A Mrs. Clark outran a pursuing Indian and escaped to 
the fort. Nathan Blake was captured and taken to Canada, 
where he remained two years. Several houses and barns were 
burned. It was thought that several Indians were killed by the 
firing from the fort. A force of between four hundred and five 
hundred men was collected within two days, who scoured the 
woods about, but the bird had flown. The Indians seem to have 
known the woods better than the whitemen did, and they knew 
how to scatter in small groups and so evade their pursuers. 
The same or another party of Indians were prowling about 
early in May, and one of them was shot by a sentry, the son 
of the Mrs. McKenny above mentioned. He heard a noise at 
the gate by night and fired through the boards at a venture. 
Blood and beads found the next morning indicated that he had 
aimed well. 

On the second day of May the Indians appeared again at 
Number 4 early in the evening, as the women went out to 
milk the cows, according to the custom of those days, guarded 
by several soldiers under command of Major Josiah Willard, 
son of the Colonel Willard who held command at Fort Dummer, 
Eight Indians were concealed in the barn and as the party 
approached they fired, killing Seth Putnam. The Indians sprang 
out to take his scalp, and a volley from the guard killed two 
of them. The Indians siezed their dying companions and made 

A HISTORY " 333 

their escape. On the sixth of May Deacon Timothy Brown and 
Robert Maffett were captured at Lower Ashuelot, now Swanzey, 
and taken to Canada, returning at the end of the war. 

In consequence of these raids Governor Shirley sent a troop 
of horse, under Captain Daniel Paine, for the protection of 
Number 4. On the morning of the twenty-fourth of May, 
twenty of Paine's men went out to see the place where Seth 
Putnam was killed and fell into an ambush, being not fully 
armed. A greatly superior number of Indians fired on the 
troopers. Aaron Lyon, Peter Perrin, and Joseph Marcy of 
Paine's troop were killed, and Samuel Farnsworth and Elijah 
Allen of Number 4 were also slain. Farnsworth was killed by a 
misdirected shot intended for an Indian he was wrestling with. 
Ebenezer Bacon was sorely wounded and afterward petitioned 
for aid and received it from the general court of Massachusetts. 
Nine years afterward John Spafford sent him a bill for his 
board while he was recovering from his wounds, forty shillings 
of lawful money. The Indians were beaten off, leaving some 
blankets, coats and guns, five of their number having been 
killed. Obadiah Sartwell was taken prisoner by them. 

Soon after Captain Ephraim Brown of Sudbury was sent to 
Number 4 to reinforce Capt. Phinehas Stevens. On the nine- 
teenth of June, with about fifty men, they went out to the 
meadow to look after the horses of the troopers, that had been 
turned out to graze. Dogs warned them of Indians near and 
they discovered an ambush of one hundred and fifty. This time 
the Indians were surprised and received the first fire. Soon 
they withdrew to a swamp, carrying several of their dead or 
wounded. They lost blankets, guns, etc., to the value of forty 
pounds, and the whitemen were elated at capturing so great 
spoils from such a beggarly company. The troops returned to 
the fort without further pursuit. Jedediah Winchell was mort- 
ally wounded and died soon after. Jonathan Stanhope, David 
Parker and Noah Heaton were wounded but recovered. 

Five days later an attack was made on Bridgman's garrison, 
near Fort Dummer, and William Robbins and James Baker or 
Barker were killed in a meadow. Michael Gilson and Patrick 
Ray were wounded, and Daniel How Jr., and John Beaman 
were captured. One Indian was killed. On the third of July 


a party of twelve Indians ambushed Colonel Hinsdale's lane 
below his mill. Colonel Willard with a team and guard of 
twenty men went over from Fort Dummer to get a grist. He 
detected the ambush, set the mill running and then made a 
dash upon the Indians who were hid thirty rods below. The 
Indians fired and Moses Wright lost two of his fingers. That 
was the only damage done. It is surprising how companies of 
troopers and Indians would shoot at each other for hours, and 
only a few would be hit. Old flint-lock muskets were not very 
effective. The Indians lost their packs in this engagement, 
worth more to them than a number of lives. This must be 
said, however, that the Indians invariably looked after their 
killed and wounded to the best of their ability. They also 
looked after the scalps of the whitemen who were killed and 
wounded. The spoils of war and the love of fighting were their 
reward, and they usually had something to remember revenge- 

On the third of August the Indians renewed their attack 
upon Number 4 fort, in large numbers. Their presence was first 
indicated by the barking of dogs. Captain Stevens sent out a 
scout to ascertain whether his surmises were correct. The men 
had scarcely left the fort, when the Indians fired upon them 
and killed Ebenezer Phillips. He was so near the gate that at 
night a soldier crept out, fastened a rope to his body and drew 
him into the fort. The Indians tried for two days to set fire to 
the fort or compel its surrender. They killed horses of the 
troopers and all the cattle of the settlers, burned the mill, which 
had been rebuilt, and all the houses save one near the fort. 
Then they withdrew again out of sight and reach. As soon as 
the news reached Boston, the governor ordered Captain Ephraim 
Brown and Captain Winchester "to go with their troops to No. 
4, and carry as great a quantity of provisions as they conven- 
iently can, and relieve the garrison and hold the place ; and upon 
their return in the fall they are to guard off as many of the 
women and children as may conveniently leave the place." In 
January, 1747, the fort at Number 4 was deserted. This was 
simply an invitation to the Indians to go further south on their 
expeditions. An attempt was made to burn Shattuck's fort, in 
Hinsdale, wither four families had fled, and Benjamin Wright 

A HISTORY - 335 

was slain at Northfield, while driving home the cows at evening. 
An attempt was made to train dogs and thus track the Indians, 
but proving of little service they were otherwise disposed of. 

Early in the spring of 1747 Captain Phinehas Stevens, in 
answer to his own petition, was ordered to march with thirty 
men to Number 4 and reoccupy the fort. He found it in good 
condition and the dog and cat gave him a hearty welcome. 
Within a few days the enemy reappeared, having come down 
the Otter river from Crown Point, their usual line of travel. 
Stevens had asked for a force of one hundred men, that he might 
go up the river and meet them by surprise before their arrival 
at the settlements. The celebrated fight that occurred at the 
fort is best told in his report to Governor Shipley, dated April 
9th, 1747. 

"Our dogs being very much disturbed, which gave us reason 
to think that the enemy were about, occasioned us not to open 
the gate at the usual time ; but one of our men, being desirous 
to know the certainty, ventured out privately to set on the dogs, 
about nine o'clock in the morning; and went about twenty rods 
from the fort firing off his gun and saying, Choboy, to the 
dogs. Whereupon the enemy, being within a few rods, im- 
mediately arose from behind a log and fired ; but through the 
goodness of God the man got into the fort with only a slight 
wound. The enemy being then discovered immediately arose 
from their ambushments and attacked us on all sides. The wind 
being very high, and everything exceedingly dry, they set fire to 
all the old fences, and also to a log-house about forty rods 
distant from the fort to the windward ; so that within a few 
minutes we were entirely surrounded with fire — all which was 
performed with the most hideous shouting and firing from all 
quarters, which they continued in a very terrible manner, until 
the next day at ten o'clock at night, without intermission ; dur- 
ing which time we had no opportunity to eat or sleep. But not- 
withstanding all their shouting and threatenings, our men 
seemed not to be in the least daunted, but fought with great 
resolution ; which, doubtless, gave the enemy to think we had 
determined to stand it out to the last degree. The enemy had 
provided themselves with a sort of fortification, which they 
had determined to push before them and bring fuel to the side 


of the fort, in order to burn it down. But instead of perform- 
ing what they threatened and seemed to be immediately going 
to undertake, they called to us and desired a cessation of arms 
until sunrise the next morning, which was granted; at which 
time they would come to a parley. Accordingly the French 
General Debeline came with about sixty of his men, with a flag 
of truce, and stuck it down within about twenty rods of the 
fort in plain sight of the same, and said if we would send three 
men to him he would send as many to us, to which we com- 
plied. The General sent in a French lieutenant with a French 
soldier and an Indian. 

Upon our men going to the Monsieur he made the follow- 
ing proposals; viz. — that in case we would immediately resign 
up the fort, we should all have our lives and liberty to put on 
all the clothes we had, and also to take a sufficient quantity of 
provisions to carry us to Montreal, and bind up our provisions 
and blankets, lay down our arms and march out of the fort. 

Upon our men returning, he desired that the Captain of the 
fort would meet him half way and give an answer to the above 
proposal, which I did ; and upon meeting the Monsieur he did 
not wait for me to give an answer, but went on in the following 
manner; viz. — that what had been promised he was ready to 
perform ; but upon refusal he would immediately set the fort on 
fire and run over the top ; for he had seven hundred men with 
him ; and if we made any further resistance, or should happen 
to kill one Indian, we might expect all to be put to the sword. 
'The fort,' said he, 'I am resolved to have, or die. Now do what 
you please ; for I am as easy to have you fight as to give up.' I 
told the General, that in case of extremity his proposal would 
do ; but in as much as I was sent here by my master, the Captain 
General, to defend this fort, it would not be consistent with my 
orders to give it up unless I was better satisfied that he was 
able to perform what he had threatened; and, furthermore, I 
told him that it was poor encouragement to resign into the hands 
of the enemy, that upon one of their number being killed they 
would put all to the sword, when it was probable that we had 
killed some of them already. 'Well,' said he, 'go into the fort, 
and see whether your men dare fight any more or not, and 
give me an answer quick, for my men want to be fighting.* 


Whereupon I came into the fort and called all the men together 
and informed them what the French General had said, and then 
put it to vote which they chose, either to fight on or resign; 
and they voted to a man to stand it out as long as they had 
life. Upon this I returned the answer that we were determined 
to fight it out. Upon which they gave a shout and then fired, 
and so continued firing and shouting until daylight the next 
morning. ' 

About noon they called to us and said, 'Good Morning,' and 
desired a cessation of arms for two hours that they might come 
to a parley; which was granted. The General did not come 
himself but sent two Indians, who came within about eight rods 
of the fort and stuck down their flag and desired that I would 
send out two men to them, which I did, and the Indians made 
the following proposal, viz. — That in case we would sell them 
provisions, they would leave and not fight any more ; and 
desired my answer, which was, that selling them provisions for 
money was contrary to the laws of nations ; but if they would 
send in a captive for every five bushels of corn, I would supply 
them. Upon the Indians returning the General this answer four 
or five guns were fired against the fort, and they withdrew, aa 
we supposed, for we heard no more of them. 

In all this time we had scarce opportunity to eat or sleep. 
The cessation of arms gave us no matter of rest, for we sus- 
pected they did it to obtain an advantage against us. I believe 
men were never known to hold out with better resolution, for 
they did not seem to sit or lie still one moment. There were 
but thirty men in the fort, and although we had some thousands 
of guns fired at us, there were but two men slightly wounded, 
viz. John Brown and Joseph Ely. 

By the above account you may form some idea of the dis- 
tressed circumstances we were under, to have such an army of 
starved creatures around us, whose necessity obliged them to 
be the more earnest. They seemed every minute as if they were 
going to swallow us up ; using all the threatening language they 
could invent, with shouting and firing, as if the heavens and the 
earth were coming together. 

But notwithstanding all this our courage held out to the 
last. We were informed by the French that came into the fort, 


that our captives were removed from Quebec to Montreal; 
which, they say, are about three hundred in number, by reason 
of sickness which is at Quebec, and that they were well and in 
good health, except three who were left sick, and that about 
three captives had died who were said to be Dutchmen. They 
also informed us that John Norton had liberty to preach to the 
captives, and that they have some thousands of French and 
Indians out and coming against our frontier." 

The news of this gallant defense was received everywhere 
with great joy. Commodore Sir Charles Knowles presented a 
valuable sword to Captain Phinehas Stevens as a reward for his 
brave conduct, and from this circumstance the town, when it 
was incorporated, was called Charlestown. 

The Indians divided into small parties and harassed the 
towns south of Number 4. On the fourteenth of November, as 
twelve men were passing from the fort down the river, they 
were surprised by a party of Indians, who killed and scalped 
Nathan Gould and Thomas Goodale. Oliver Avery was 
wounded and John Henderson was wounded in the head and 
arm and carried to Canada, nearly starved and shamefully 
treated. He got back to Boston, however, about a year later. 

One hundred men were stationed at Number 4 during the 
following winter, under command of Captain Stevens. Captain 
Humphrey Hobbs was second in command. Eight men went 
out sixty rods from the fort to get wood. Ten Indians sculking 
about ran to attack them, killing Charles Stevens, wounding one 
Andreas and taking Eleazer Priest captive. The Indians had 
snow shoes, and the soldiers at the fort had none, and so pur- 
suit was not possible. 

About this time Upper Ashuelot, Lower Ashuelot and Win- 
chester were abandoned by their inhabitants for a period of four 
or five years. A party of Indians visited Upper Ashuelot after 
the inhabitants had fled and burned twenty-seven houses, the 
fort, the meeting house and many barns. Only four houses 
and a mill were left in the town. All the live stock that could 
not be driven away were killed. It had long been impossible 
to till the fields with safety. Provisions were getting scarce. 
The people buried some valuables, carried away what they could 
and left the rest to be destroyed by the Indians, who promptly 


did their work. The men joined the garrison at Fort Dummer, 
and the women and children found protection in lower towns. 

To relate in detail all the incidents of these Indian raids 
upon the Connecticut valley would be wearisome. One incident 
is worthy of mention. A French officer, named Raimbault, was 
shot at Winchester and left for dead by friend and foe. He 
revived and after wandering about five days in a half starved 
condition surrendered himself, by accident, to Captain Ebenezer 
Alexander, the very man who had shot him. His wounds were 
dressed and he was sent as a prisoner of war to Boston. Soon 
afterward it was arranged that he should be exchanged for two 
prisoners in Canada, one of whom was the Nathan Blake already 
mentioned. Blake had shown such prowess and strength that 
he had been put in the place of the chief who had died, and a 
dusky squaw claimed him as her husband. He escaped and 
went to prison in Quebec, whence he was exchanged and re- 
turned to his family. The next year the Frenchman, Raimbault, 
led another company of Indians against the settlement and 
returned with five scalps. 

October 22, Bridgman's fort, house and barn were burned, 
and Jonathan Sartwell was taken prisoner. Three men belong- 
ing to Hinsdale's fort were killed, Nathan French, Joseph Rich- 
ardson and John Frost. Seven were captured. Four escaped 
across the river to Fort Dummer, one of whom was wounded. 
Of the seven captured William Bickford was killed the first 
night. The others were stripped of most of their clothing and 
driven to Canada. Four of them were made to "run the gaunt- 
let" and otherwise mistreated. They reached home in the fall, 
greatly emaciated from abuse and starvation, and Benjamin 
Osgood died a few weeks later. 

It was determined to carry the war into the enemy's 
country, but with insufficient forces. Captain Eleazer Melvin 
started from Fort Dummer and was joined at Number 4 by the 
companies of Captain Stevens and Hobbs. They followed the 
Indian trail along Black river and Otter creek. The party 
divided into two small squads, and Captain Stevens scouted to 
the eastward till he struck the Connecticut river and returned 
to Fort Dummer without meeting the enemy. Captain Melvin 
proceeded to Crown Point, whence he was obliged to beat a 



hasty retreat. At West river his men were surprised by shots 
from behind a log only twenty or thirty feet from the place 
where they had halted to take refreshments. No one was hurt 
at the first discharge. Melvin's men were obliged to scatter and 
make their way back to Fort Dummer as best each one could. 
Melvin and a dozen more got there in safety. Six had been 
killed outright and scalped. They were Sergeants John Hey- 
wood and Isaac Taylor, and privates John Dodd, Daniel Mann, 
Samuel Severance and Joseph Petty. 

The later scouting party from Number 4, commanded by 
Captain Hobbs, was more successful. On the twenty-sixth of 
June, 1748, with a party of forty soldiers, he met the enemy 
about twelve miles northwest of Fort Dummer, in what is now 
the town of Marlborough, Vermont, and, while they were eating, 
a large number of Indians, commanded by the half-breed, 
Sackett, a courageous and dangerous leader, attacked them. 
Hobbs and his men, each sheltered by a tree, stood their ground 
for four hours in a battle with muskets at close range. The 
Indians outnumbered the white men four to one, and rushed on 
with their usual yells and tumult, but a little experience cau- 
tioned them to keep behind shelter, for those who appeared in 
the open quickly went down under unerring fire. Sackett and 
Hobbs had known each other in time of peace, and Sackett kept 
calling out in a loud voice to Hobbs to surrender or all his men 
would be killed, to which Hobbs replied in words of defiance. 
Sackett was wounded and then the Indians retired, carrying off 
their dead and wounded. Hobbs lost three killed and four 
wounded. Samuel Gunn and Ebenezer Mitchell, killed, and 
Ralph Rice, wounded, were from Ashuelot. Daniel McKenny 
had his thigh broken and was disabled for life. 

On the fourteenth of July Sergeant Thomas Taylor was 
leading a squad of sixteen recruits along the east side of the 
river, in what is now Hinsdale, w^hen he was suddenly assailed 
by overwhelming numbers of Indians in ambush. Two Indians 
and two whitemen were killed and Taylor with ten of his men 
was taken away to Canada, by forced marches of twenty miles 
a day. Reinforcements attempted to pursue but soon gave up 
the chase. The prisoners were sold in Canada for more money 


than their scalps were worth, and after a few months, peace 
having been concluded, returned to their homes.*-^ 

Turning to the northern frontier of the province we shall 
see that Hopkinton, Contoocook and Rumford suffered heavily 
from the same wily foe. To guard scattered and far separated 
houses from surprises was impossible, and even when families 
were assembled in garrisons, there seems to have been great 
negligence in the use of sentinels. The enemy almost always 
fell upon the settlers at some unexpected moment. On the 
morning of April 22, 1746, in Hopkinton, eight persons were 
captured by Indians at Woodwell's garrison, viz., Daniel Wood- 
well, Mrs. Woodwell, their daughter Mary, sons Benjamin and 
Thomas, Samuel Burbank and his sons, Caleb and Jonathan. In 
the early morning a man had gone from the garrison to the 
stockade, leaving the garrison door open. The lurking Indians 
rushed in and surprised the inmates. One soldier escaped. Mrs. 
Samuel Burbank concealed herself under an upright barrel in the 
cellar. Mrs. Woodwell had a struggle with an Indian, from 
whom she wrested a long knife and threw it into the well. Mary 
Woodwell, aged sixteen, resisted and was aided by an Indian 
who had received some kindness from her father. The family 
were taken by St. Francis Indians to Canada, being twelve days 
on the march. They had only one meal a day, at evening, when 
they rested, cooked and ate. Their food was mainly meat, and 
once they were obliged to eat a dog, but May W^oodwell would 
not touch it, and the friendly Indian shot a woodpecker for her. 
Mary was sold to an Indian squaw, who valued her so highly 
after a captivity of three years, that when there was talk of 
ransom the squaw wanted Mary's weight in silver. A physician 
helped to secure her release by a strategem. He told the squaw 
that Mary was sick and was likely to die, in which case she 
would get nothing. Thus the squaw was persuaded to part 

9 In the above condensed account of the fighting in the Connecticut 
valley no account has been given of conflicts in adjoining Massachusetts 
territory. The narrative of Dr. Belknap has been supplemented by that of 
the histories of Northfield, Keene and Charlestown. The fighting was all 
done by Massachusetts troops and men of the towns above mentioned. No 
New Harnpshire troops were sent from the east to help their newly acquired 
fellow citizens, so far as has been learned, although twenty men had been 
voted as a garrison to Fort Dummer. The defense of this region was a 
military necessity to Massachusetts, and New Hampshire had all the fighting 
she could attend to elsewhere. 


with the captive, who had hoed her corn and done her drudgery, 
for the paltry sum of $18.50. She returned to friends in Hop- 
kinton, Massachusetts. She was twice married and died among 
the Shakers at Canterbury, in October, 1829, in the one hun- 
dredth year of her age. Jonathan Burbank was left in an 
Indian family. The other six captives were taken to Quebec, 
where Samuel Burbank and Mrs. Woodwell died of yellow 
fever, while in prison. The other captives eventually secured 

Another attack was made at Contoocook, now Boscawen. 
Josiah Bishop was surprised while working in the field, and was 
taken to the woods. He resisted bravely, evidently preferring 
death to captivity. As a result of his outcries he was killed by 
tomahawks. Families took refuge in garrisons. Captain 
Clough's garrison, in the neighboring town of Canterbury, was a 
shelter for some. Among his soldiers was the well known 
Indian, Cristo, whose wigwam once stood on the east side ot 
the Merrimack, a short distance below the falls at Amoskeag, 
now Manchester. His allegiance could not be safely counted 
on, and sometimes he fought with the whitemen and sometimes 
with the St. Francis Indians. He was paid for service as a 
scout. Thomas Cook, a colored man, was slain at Contoocook, 
and Elisha Jones was taken to Canada, where he died. 

Nearly a score of petitions for help were sent to the general 
assembly, among them being one from Rumford, now Concord, 
presented by Colonel Benjamin Rolfe. He thought forty sol- 
diers were needed for the defense of that town and two hundred 
and fifty were needed to protect the whole frontier between 
the Connecticut and Merrimack rivers. Other towns, even to 
Gosport, were equally clamorous. Probably the French fleet 
was feared at the Isles of Shoals, and the landsmen of New 
Hampshire were supposed to be able to drive them away or 
sink them. It was impossible to find men and means to calm 
the fears of all the petitioners. Only fifteen men could be spared 
for Rumford and Canterbury, commanded by Colonel Benjamin 
Rolfe and Captain Jeremiah Clough. Massachusetts also sent 
small detachments of men from Andover and Billerica, to help 
defend Rumford in 1745. All the inhabitants were quartered in 
garrisons, and recently placed markers point out the spots where 


anxious people flocked together for mutual protection and 
hourly watched and listened for assaults of the lurking foe. 
One may see the historic sites along the main street of Concord, 
reminders of the perils and anxieties, as well as fortitude and 
heroism, of the forefathers and great-grandmothers. The Rev. 
Timothy Walker is said to have had the best gun in the com- 
munity and he always took it into the pulpit with him. The head 
of each family sat at the end of the pew nearest the aisle, with 
gun within easy reach. The laborers in the field were guarded 
by the sentinels. In spite of all precautions the Indians in large 
bands nearly always managed to conceal themselves in swamps 
and thickets during the day and to make their attacks in 
unexpected places and moments. On the eleventh of August, 
1746, Lieutenant Jonathan Bradley took six of the men of Cap- 
tain Ladd, who had come up from Exeter, together with Obediah 
Peters of Captain Melvin's company from Massachusetts, and 
went toward a garrison two miles and a half westerly of the pres- 
ent city of Concord. At a spot about half way between the city and 
St. Paul's school, that now is well known, they were fired upon 
by thirty or forty ambushed Indians. Five were killed, Lieu- 
tenant Jonathan Bradley, Samuel Bradley, John Lufkin, John 
Bean and Obadiah Peters. They were stripped and scalped and 
left mangled by the roadside. Alexander Roberts and William 
Stickney were captured. Daniel Oilman made his escape and 
alarmed the town. It is thought that four or five Indians were 
killed. Lieutenant Bradley disdained to surrender, and the 
history of his ancestors in Haverhill, Massachusetts, had taught 
him that death was preferable to captivity. He fought till he 
was dreadfully hacked by tomahawks. Their bodies were 
removed in an ox-cart to the Osgood garrison, where there was 
great lamentation. As usual pursit of the fleeing enemy was 
unavailing. After one year's captivity William Stickney man- 
aged to escape, but was, as some think, accidentally drowned 
before he reached home. Alexander Roberts made his escape 
from captivity after one year and returned to Rumford. He 
shared with others a bounty of seventy-five pounds for killing 
an Indian, a portion of whose skull was shown for proof. The 
other sharers were the heirs of the persons slain. A monument 
has been erected, in 1837, by Richard Bradley, grandson of the 


Samuel Bradley slain, to commemorate the massacre. It stands 
near the spot where they were killed and tells a pathetic story 
to all who pass by, helping us to realize a little better how much 
our present safety and privileges have cost in the sufferings of 

A party of Indians came down as far as Rochester and fell 
upon five men at work in a field. After one Indian had drawn 
their fire, the rest rushed upon them with shoutings and whoop- 
ings. The men fled to a deserted house and fastened the door. 
The Indians tore off the roof and before the pursued could 
reload their guns they were shot and tomahawked. The slain 
were Joseph Heard, Joseph Richards, John Wentworth and 
Gershom Downs. They wounded and captured John Richards 
and also took a boy twelve years of age, named Jonathan Door, 
as he sat on a fence singing a song. Door lived with the Indians 
many years. One narrative says that he* married and had 
children among the Indians, that he fought with them against 
the whites, that his wife and children were killed in the massacre 
of the St. Francis tribe, and that afterward he returned and 
married in Rochester. John Richards was healed of his wound 
and after eighteen months returned to Boston under a flag of 
truce. About this time Moses Roberts was mistaken for an 
Indian and shot by another sentinel, as he was creeping through 
the woods. In May 1747 the Indians again visited Rochester 
and killed the wife of Jonathan Hodgdon, as she was going to 
milk her cows. Her husband attempted to rescue her, but his gun 
missed fire and he was obliged to flee. At Nottingham Robert 
Beard, John Folsom and Elizabeth Simpson were slain. The 
whole frontier felt in continual danger, though the principal 
depredations were in the valleys of the Connecticut and Merri- 
mack rivers. 

Belknap has called attention to the asserted fact that in this 
war there was less cruelty practiced by the Indians. The cap- 
tives were kindly treated, and there were no instances of torture. 
The Indians even assisted the wounded and shared their food 
with their prisoners in times of scarcity of provisions. This was 
true in general, although in special cases men were forced to 
run the gauntlet and were shamefully treated. A live captive 
brought to the Indians more money than a scalp, and so they 


killed and scalped only those who would not surrender or could 
not keep up on the march. One instance of Indian nobility has 
been often narrated. "An Indian had surprised a man at 
Ashuelot. The man asked for quarter, and it was granted. 
Whilst the Indian was preparing to bind him, he seized the 
Indian's gun and shot him in one arm. The Indian, however, 
secured him; but took no other revenge than, with a kick, to 
say, 'You dog, how could you treat me so?' The gentleman 
from whom this information came has frequently heard the story 
both from the captive and the captor. The latter related it as an 
instance of English perfidy; the former of Indian lenity." It 
is feared that this story has gained much by repeated narrations. 
The captured man would hardly tell it in this manner, and 
Indian narratives are not always to be accepted at face value. 
There are so many instances of deliberate and cold-blooded 
murder of women and children and so many acts of treachery 
on the part of the Indians in all their wars, that an exceptional 
case like this narrated needs to be treated with caution. 

The French and Indians had a great advantage in carrying 
the war into the enemy's country. Stealthily they chose the 
unguarded house or the feeble garrison and in much larger num- 
bers killed, captured and burned. Having taken a few captives 
and what spoil they could carry, they at once hastened back to 
Canada before they could be overtaken, to return again as soon 
as fears of the settlers had subsided. The English were at great 
expense, accomplished little, lacked leadership and concerted ef- 
fort, and suffered severely ; the Indians were crafty in them- 
selves and had able French officers to plan their incursions. The 
spoils they took and the ransom received for their captives paid 
the expenses of the war on their part. Few Indians were killed, 
and the war of four years was a pastime to them. Only six years 
after the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, confirmed by a treaty with the 
Indians at old Falmouth, on Casco Bay, the Indians were quite 
ready to dig up the tomahawks and return to their sport of 
ambushing defenseless workers, burning unguarded houses and 
dragging to Canada as many men, women and children as they 
could force to keep up with them on a hurried march. It was 
not war ; it was murder and robbery. 

Chapter XVII 


Chapter XVII 


Early Grants of Massachusetts — The Monadnock Towns — Conditions of all 
the Grants — Mason — New Ipswich — Rindge — Fitzwilliam — Wilton — 
Jaffrey — Marlborough — Dublin — Nelson — Stoddard — Gilsum — 
Peterborough — Lyndeborough — Amherst — Bedford — Gofifstown — 
New Boston — Dunbarton — Weare — The Bow Controversy — Rum- 
ford becomes Concord — Hopkinton — Henniker — Hillsborough — 
Washington — Warner — Bradford — Newbury — Sutton — New Lon- 
don — Salisbury — Andover — Hill — Alexandria — Sanbornton — 
Meredith — Tuftonborough — New Durham — Middleton — Wakefield 
— Effingham — Privations and Character of the Settlers. 

TT may rest the imagination, wearied with tales of blood and 
-*• fears, to pause between the two French and Indian wars and 
pass in brief review the new townships granted during the 
first part of Governor Benning Wentworth's administration. 
Massachusetts had granted about thirty townships in New 
Hampshire before the settlement of the boundary line. After 
the Masonian proprietors had bought the claim of John Tufton 
Mason, they hastened to regrant and in many cases to rename 
these towns, although their incorporation followed some years 
later. But few settlers had come in, and during the first 
French and Indian war many of the settlers were frightened 
away. As soon as peace returned, they or their assigns came 
back to claim the lands partly cleared and to reoccupy the log 
cabins, if they remained unburned. Thus a great company of 
settlers moved gradually up the Merrimack valley from the 
old towns of Massachusetts, especially from Essex County, 
which before the settlement of the line was made to include 
territory as far north as Boscawen. Along the Connecticut 
River, not claimed by the Masonian proprietors, settlers came 
up from middle Massachusetts and from Connecticut, pushing 
further on with every generation to seize the fertile lowlands 
along the rivers and streams. On the northern frontier and 
around lake Winnepiseogee the settlers came from the old towns 



of New Hampshire and some from Kittery and Berwick. Lon- 
donderry kept receiving and sending forth settlers from the 
North of Ireland, as sturdy Scotchmen as ever breathed the 
"winds frae off Ben Lomond." 

There was a circle of towns about mount Monadnock, that 
took their first names from the mountain. Other towns were 
granted by Massachusetts to the heirs of those who had taken 
part in the expedition to Canada in 1690. Petitions came in 
to the Masonian proprietors and to the governor and council 
from all directions. Groups of men in Massachusetts and in 
New Hampshire put in claims for unoccupied land as a mere 
speculation, often not pretending to settle such lands, but to 
sell to others. Hence the grantees give little clue as to who 
first settled the towns. As has been said before, the Masonian 
proprietors reserved two or three hundred acres apiece for them- 
selves, in some cases a quarter of the township, which were not 
to be taxed till improved. Thus the whole burden of building 
roads, mills and a meeting house came upon the few first set- 
tlers. All pines fit for masts were, in every grant, reserved 
for the royal navy, and there was a nominal quit rent, if ever 
demanded. This legally made the settlers tenants of the king, 
and to him they owed allegiance. 

The subject may perhaps be made clearer by beginning at 
the southern boundary line and mentioning the new towns, 
tier by tier, proceeding north. The town of Mason was granted 
by the Masonian proprietors, November i, 1749. It had been 
previously known as number one and was settled by people 
from Massachusetts. It was named for Captain John Mason. 
The inhabitants voted to call the town Sharon, but their wish was 
overruled. It was incorporated August 26, 1768. The northern 
part was set off and incorporated as the town of Greenville June 
28, 1872. 

New Ipswich was granted, April 17, 1750. by the Masonian 
proprietors. It had been previously granted by Massachusetts, 
January 15, 1735-6, to a company of men from Ipswich, Massa- 
chusetts, and originally was called Ipswich-Canada. It was in- 
corporated as Ipswich, September 9, 1762, and as New Ipswich, 
March 6, 1766. The first settlers, living there in 1750, were 
Reuben Kidder. Archibald White, Jonas Woolson. Abijah Fos- 


ter, John Brown, Benjamin Hoar, Jr., Timothy Heald, Joseph 
Kidder, Joseph Bullard, Ebenezer Bullard, Joseph Stevens, and 
John Chandler. The first or second cotton mill in New Hamp- 
shire was erected in New Ipswich. The town sent sixty men 
to the battle of Bunker Hill. 

Rindge was granted by Massachusetts, February 3, 1736-7, 
to certain inhabitants of Rowley, Massachusetts, that were in 
the Canada expedition, and hence it was called Rowley-Canada. 
It was known also as Monadnock Number i or South Monad- 
nock. It was regranted by the Masonian proprietors, February 
14, 1749-50, and incorporated as Rindge, February 11, 1768, 
named in honor of Daniel Rindge of Portsmouth. Among the 
first settlers were John Hale of Boxford, Massachusetts, Richard 
Peabody, Jonathan Stanley. George Hewetts and Abel Platts. 
Among the prominent men in its history have been Colonels 
Enoch Hale and Nathan Hale, brothers. Rev. Edward Payson 
and Hon. Marshall P. Wilder. 

Fitzwilliam, or Monadnock Number 4, was granted by 
the Masonian proprietors, January 15, 1752, to Roland Cotton, 
Matthew Thornton and others, many of whom were from 
Dunstable. The conditions were not fulfilled, and so it was 
regranted. May 2, 1765, to Colonel Sampson Stoddard, Edmund 
Grouard, Jacob Treadwell, Jr., Jonathan Lovewell and nine- 
teen others. It was sometimes called Stoddard's Town. Among 
the first settlers were Brigadier General James Reed, John 
Fassett and Benjamin Bigelow. It was incorporated May 19, 
1773- -^ portion of this town was included within the limits 
of Troy, which was incorporated June 23, 181 5. 

Wilton was granted by the Masonian proprietors, as Num- 
ber 2, October i, 1749, to Thomas Reed and others, many of 
them from Newbury, Massachusetts. It was incorporated as 
Wilton, June 25, 1762, and reincorporated January 2, 1765. The 
first settlers came from Danvers, Massachusetts. It is beauti- 
fully situated among the hills, on the Souhegan river, which 
supplies, with uniting streams, a considerable water power for 
varied manufacturies. The oldest part of the town is on ele- 
vated land, affording beautiful views for many miles around. 
There are some fine summer residences. The Unitarian and Bap- 
tist churches here look lonely, but the many horse sheds, 


still kept in repair, indicate that a large farming population keep 
up the old New England habit of going to church. West 
Wilton is a gem of a village, and the residences betoken con- 
siderable wealth. There are too many churches for the present 
population of the town, but this is true of the majority of towns 
in New England. 

Jaffrey was granted by the Masonian proprietors, November 
30, 1749, to Jonathan Hubbard and others. It was known as 
Monadnock Number 2, or Middle Monadnock. The grant was 
renewed March 13, 1767, and the town was incorporated as 
Jafifrey, August 17, 1773, in honor of George Jaffrey of Ports- 
mouth, one of the governor's council and of the Masonian 
proprietors. John Grant and John Davidson made the first set- 
tlements about 1758. The old Congregational church is still 
standing at the Center, used for a long time as the Town Hall. 
Several large summer hotels are in this vicinity, and they are 
a very popular place of resort, even in winter. East Jaffrey, 
as a manufacturing town, on the Contoocook river, is now the 
center of population and industry, a beautiful village with four 
churches and two banks. From every hill-top there is fine 
mountain scenery. 

Marlborough was granted by the Masonian proprietors as 
Monadnock Number 5 to James Morrison and others, most of 
whom appear to have been of old Londonberry, May 20, 1752. 
It contained twenty thousand acres. Many of the settlers came 
from Marlborough, Massachusetts. The first settlers were 
William Barker, Abel Woodward, Benjamin Tucker and Daniel 
Goodenough. Colonel Andrew Colburn, killed in the Revolu- 
tion, was of this town. It was incorporated December 13, 1776. 
A portion of the town, with other territory, was incorporated 
as Roxbury, December 9, 1812. Another portion helped to form 

Dublin was granted by the same proprietors as the above 
towns, November 3, 1749. It was known as Monadnock Num- 
ber 3, or North Monadnock. Among the grantees appear the 
names of Matthew Thornton and Colonel Sampson Stoddard, 
and they appear among the grantees of several other towns, 
showing that they were getting land wherever they could, the 
cost being very little and the hope great. The town was in- 



corporated as Dublin, March 29, 1771, and named for Dublin, 
Ireland. This town has become the place of summer residence 
of many wealthy people. 

Nelson was granted by the Masonian proprietors as Monad- 
nock Number 6, May 10, 1752 to John Hutchinson and others. 
The grant was renewed September 30, 1767 and again February 
23, 1774. It was incorporated as Packersfield, February 22, 
1774. and named on honor of Thomas Packer of Portsmouth. 
The name of the town was changed to Nelson June 14, 1814. 
The first settlement was made by Breed Batchelder and Dr. 
Nathaniel Breed, in 1767. The southern part of the town, to- 
gether with the northern part of Dublin, made up the town 
of Harrisville, in 1870. 

Stoddard was granted by the Masonian proprietors, May 
10, 1752, to Colonel Sampson Stoddard and others. It was 
known as Monadnock Number 7 and Limerick. It was re- 
granted November 4, 1767, and incorporated as Stoddard No- 
vember 4, 1774. The first settlers were John Taggard, Reuben 
Walton, Alexander Scott, and James Mitchell, in 1769. 

Gilsum was granted December 28, 1752, to Joseph Osgood 
and others and was known as Boyle, It was regranted July 
13, 1763 to Samuel Gilbert, Thomas Sumner and others, and 
named Gilsum by comb»ining the first syllables of the two sur- 
names, Gilbert and Sumner. The west part of the town was 
combined with a portion of Westmoreland to make up the town 
of Surry, March 9, 1769. The southeast part, with parts of 
Keene, Stoddard, and Nelsopi made the town of Sullivan, Sep- 
tember 27, 1787. The first settlers were Josiah Kilburn, Peltiah 
Pease, Obadiah Wilcox, Ebenezer Dewey, and Jonathan Adams, 
in 1764. 

Peterborough, formerly known as Souhegan, was granted 
by Massachusetts, January 16, 1737-8, to Samuel Hayward and 
others. It was purchased by four men, Jeremiah Gridley, John 
Vassel, Major John Fowles and John Hill, to whom the 
Masonian proprietors quitclaimed the land January 26, 1748, 
reserving to themselves thirty-four hundred acres, or abcmt two 
htmdred acres apiece, not taxable. At the beginning of the 
first French and Indian war it had about thirty families, many 
of whom left the town during the war. Before 1748 it had 


mills and a meeting house. It was incorporated as Peter- 
borough, January 17, 1760. The first settlers were of the Scotch- 
Irish colony, and their nearest mill was at Townsend, Massa- 
chusetts, twenty-five miles away. The water power has caused 
the development of a large manufacturing village, well served 
by two lines of railroad. From the easterly portion of what 
was known as "Peterborough Slip," was formed the town of 
Temple, incorporated August 26, 1768. 

Lyndeborough, called first Salem-Canada, was granted by 
Massachusetts, June 19, 1735, to Captain Samuel King and 
others. It was granted by the Masonian proprietors, December 
5> I753» to Judge Benjamin Lynde, Jr., and others. It was 
incorporated April 23, 1764. Farming has always been the chief 

Amherst was granted as Narragansett Number 3, December 
18, 1728, by Massachusetts, to the heirs of those who had served 
in the Narragansett war of 1675. Afterward it was called Sou- 
hegan West. The first settlers were Samuel Walton and Samuel 
Lampson, in 1734. The Masonian proprietors quitclaimed, De- 
cember I, 1759, to the owners of lots their right to the same 
for a consideration of fifty-four shillings for each share. The 
first settlers came from the old towns of Massachusetts. Among 
them were Rev. Daniel Wilkins, the first minister, ordained in 
1736. Amherst is the birthplace of Horace Greeley. It was 
once the most important town in Hillsborough county and the 
seat of the courts, but is now overshadowed by Manchester and 
Nashua. It was incorporated January 18, 1760. A portion of 
the town was combined with a part of Hollis to make up the 
town of Milford, incorporated January 11, 1794. Mont Vernon 
was set off and incorporated December 15, 1803. Monson, that 
was incorporated April i, 1746, a part of old Dunstable, was 
divided between Amherst and Hollis, July 4, 1770, and then 
ceased to exist as a separate town. 

Bedford was granted by Massachusetts to Narragansett 
soldiers and heirs February 12, 1733-4, and was called Narra- 
gansett Number 5, and also Souhegan East. The first settlers 
were Robert and James Walker, in 1737. Many of the settlers 
came from North Ireland and were Scotch Presbyterians. 
Colonel John Goffe, Matthew Patten and Samuel Patten came 


in 1738. The Masonian proprietors confirmed the grant of the 
town, November 9, 1748, and it was incorporated as Bedford, 
May 19, 1750, named for the Duke of Bedford. A portion of 
this town was annexed to Manchester, July i, 1853. 

Goffstown, next north of Bedford, was granted by Massa- 
chusetts as Narragansett Number 4, February 9, 1733-4. It was 
also called Shove's Town. The Masonian proprietors regranted 
the town to Thomas Parker of Dracut and others, December 
3, 1748. It was incorporated as Goffstown, June 16, 1761, and 
named in honor of Colonel John Goffe. Parts have been set 
off to form Hooksett and Manchester. The grantees were from 
Chelmsford, Souhegan East, Haverhill, Massachusetts, London- 
derry, and Brookline, and many Scotch names appear. 

New Boston was granted by Massachusetts, January 14, 
1735-6, to John Simpson and others, mainly inhabitants of 
Boston. It was sometimes called Lane's Town and Boston 
Piscataquog Township. It was granted by the Masonian pro- 
prietors, June 10, 1751, to Job Lewis and others, and was in- 
corporated as New Boston. February 18, 1763. 

Dunbarton was granted by Massachusetts, June 19, 1735, 
to Captain John Gorham's men and was called Gorham-town. 
It was granted by the Masonian proprietors, December 18, 
1748, to Archibald Stark and others, chiefly of the Scotch-Irish 
emigrants, and was regranted, March 2, 1752. It was then 
known as Stark's Town. It was incorporated as Dunbarton, 
August 10, 1765, named for a town in Scotland. A portion of 
this town helped to form Hooksett in 1822. The first settlers 
about 1739, were James Rogers and six sons and Joseph Pudney 
and six sons, who together owned two thousand one hundred 
and ninety acres. In 1747 the Indians burned their houses and 
barns, cut down their orchards and killed their cattle. Other 
early settlers were Thomas Colburn, Benjamin Gould and Jona- 
than Parkhurst. 

Weare was granted by Massachusetts, June 19, i735' ^*^ 
Robert Hale for Captain John Raymond's men and was called 
Beverly-Canada, and also Hale's Town. It was granted by the 
Masonian proprietors, September 20, 1749, to Ichabod Robie 
and others, many of whom were from Hampton. It was m- 
corporated as Weare, September 21, 1764, and named for Hon. 


Meshech Weare. Some of the first settlers were Nathaniel 
Martin, John Jewell, Thomas Worthley, John Marsh, Stephen 
George, Caleb Emery, Moses, William and Aaron Quimby, and 
Timothy Corliss. The last was from Haverhill, Mass. 

Mention has been previously made of how Penacook or 
Rumford was granted by Massachusetts, and Bow by New 
Hampshire about the same time, both grants covering much 
of the same territory. This caused a long dispute about the 
ownership of land by the first settlers, called the Bow Contro- 
versy. Bow took in the larger parts of Penacook and Suncook 
and extended into Hopkinton. The grantees were the leading 
men in Portsmouth, many of them high in office. It was a test 
case as to the ownership of land, before the boundary line was 
settled. Benjamin Rolfe presented a petition to the general 
assembly of New Hampshire, January 24, 1749, for the in- 
corporation of Rumford according to its original bounds. A 
■counter petition for the incorporation of Bow was presented 
by the selectmen of that town, February 7, 1749-50. A suit 
was begun against Deacon John Merrill by the proprietors of 
Bow, with the intent to eject him from eight acres of land. 
The proprietors of Rumford took up the case as a test and 
defended the right of Merrill to land he had cultivated. The 
sale of common land met the expenses of the trial. In 1760 
sundry proprietors contributed fifteen pounds apiece, afterwards 
recovered, and in 1766 it was voted to raise four hundred 
poundsi to defend their rights. The Rev. Timothy Walker 
went to England in 1753 to lay the case of the Rumford pro- 
prietors before the king in council. His petition states that 
the king had declared that the question of jurisdiction should 
not affect the rights of owners of private property; also that 
the petitioners could not obtain a fair trial in the courts of 
New Hampshire, because the govern©r and most of the council 
were proprietors of Bow and that they appointed the judges 
and the officers to impanel a jury. Mr. Walker visited Eng- 
land a second and a third time and had for his counselor Sir 
William Murray, later Lord Mansfield, chief justice of the 
King's Bench. The decision was that the actual settler and 
possessor has as good a title under a grant from Massachusetts 
as under a grant from New Hampshire. Thus the decisions 


of courts in New Hampshire were reversed and lands in Rum- 
ford remained in the possession of those first settlers who 
had come up from. Massachusetts. The Massachusetts gov- 
ernment had contributed one hundred pounds to aid in the law 
suits, and New Hampshire voted another one hundred pounds 
to aid Bow. Thus the governor and council helped to tax 
the whole province to secure their rights to lands which they 
had granted to themselves in Bow, alias Rum ford. The trouble 
was finally settled by the creation of the parish of Concord 
with town rights in 1765. It was hoped that the name was 
prophetic of harmony and peace.^ 

Hopkinton, or Number 5 in the line of townships from the 
Merrimack to the Connecticut,- was granted by Massachusetts, 
January 16, 1735-6, to men from Hopkinton, Massachusetts, and 
hence the town was called New Hopkinton. It lies next west 
of Concord, on the Contoocook river, which affords excellent 
water power. The first settlement was on Putney hill, where 
traces of the old fort and cemetery may be seen. The town was 
granted by the Masonian proprietors, November 30, 1750, to 
Henry Mellen, Thomas Walker, Thomas Mellen, and such 
others as they shall admit as their associates. Among the first 
settlers were Aaron and Jeremiah Kimball. The village was 
once one of the most important in the State, and the legisla- 
ture convened here in 1798, 1801, 1806 and 1807, and it was 
for some time undecided whether the capital of the State should 
be here or at Concord. The courts for Hillsborough county 
were alternately held here and at Amherst for forty years, till 
Merrimack county was formed, in 1823. It was incorporated 
as Hopkinton, January 11, 1765. A portion of Bow was annexed 
December 13, 1763. Hopkinton contains the flourishing village 
of Contoocook. 

Henniker, or Number 6, was granted by Massachusetts, 
January 16, 1735-6, to John Whitman and others. Some of the 
grantees came from Stowe and Marlborough, Massachusetts, 

1 See Bouton's Hist, of Concord, pp. 203-226. 

2 January 15, 1735, the general court of Massachusetts ordered a survey 
of the lands between Merrimack and Connecticut rivers, from the northeast 
corner of Rumford, on the Merrimack, to the Great Falls on the Connecticut, 
at least twelve miles in breadth, and a committee of eleven men was chosen 
to lay out the land into townships of six miles square. 


and hence it was sometimes called New Marlborough. It was 
granted by the Masonian proprietors, July 12, 1752, to Andrew 
Todd and more than fifty others from Londonderry. It was 
incorporated November 10, 1768, and named in honor of John 
Henniker, member of parliament. Among the first settlers were 
Eliakin Howe, Amos Gould, Thomas Stone, from Marlborough, 
Josiah Ward and Deacon Ebenezer Hartshorn. These came 
in 1763-4. The Rev. James Scales of Hopkinton built the first 
house in Henniker. 

Hillsborough was Number 7 in the line of towns granted 
by Massachusetts, January 16, 1735-6. The first settlement was 
made in 1741 by James McCalley, Samuel Gibson, Robert 
McClure, James Lyon and others. The settlement was aban- 
doned during the Indian war, from 1744, and resumed in 1755. 
The Masonian proprietors granted this town to Col. John Hill 
of Boston and others, January 26, 1748-9, and it was named in 
honor of Hill. The water power has given rise to varied manu- 
facturies, and several villages dot the town. Here lived Gov- 
ernor Benjamin Pierce, and his son, Franklin Pierce, fourteenth 
president of the United States, was born here. The town was 
incorporated November 14, 1772- 

Washington was Number 8 in the above mentioned line 
of townships, granted by Massachusetts, January 16, 1735-6- 
It was granted by the Masonian proprietors, December 11, 1752, 
to Captain Peter Prescott and others from Concord and other 
Massachusetts towns, and a few of the grantees were of New 
Hampshire. It was called Monadnock Number 8, New Concord, 
and Camden, until it was incorporated, December 13, 1776, as 
Washington, named in honor of George Washington. The condi- 
tions of the grant having been unfilled, it was legranted, March 
17, 1768, to Colonel Reuben Kidder who induced a company 
of men from Ipswich, Massachusetts, to settle by giving to 
each settler one hundred acres. The first minister was the 
Rev. George Leslie, installed in 1780. 

Warner was Number i in the line of townships, granted 
at the same time as the above named towns to Thomas Stevens 
and others, many of whom were from Amesbury, Massachusetts. 
Hence it was first called New Amesbury, or Almsbury. It 
was granted by the Masonian proprietors, March 14, 1749-50. 


to Richard Jenness and others from Rye, and hence was called 
Jenness-Town, or Rye-Town. It was regranted, December 24, 
1767, to Jonathan Barnard, Increase Morrill and Ezekiel Evans, 
on behalf of the proprietors of the town. A road was cleared 
and a mill built before 1739. It was incorporated as Warner, 
September 3, 1774, named for Jonathan Warner of Portsmouth. 
The first settlers were Daniel Annis and his son-in-law, Reuben 
Kimball, in 1762. These came from Bradford, Massachusetts. 

Bradford was in the line of townships above mentioned 
and was granted by Massachusetts, January 16, 1735-6. The 
date of its grant by the Masonian proprietors is not known ; 
indeed in a petition of Matthew Thornton and Stephen Holland, 
in 1769, they say it was never granted. One of the first settlers 
was William Presbury. It was named New Bradford by 
settlers from Bradford, Massachusetts, and was incorporated 
as Bradford, September 27, 1787. 

Newbury was granted by the Masonian proprietors, June 
4, 1753, to James Minot, Jr., and others and was originally 
called Dantzic. The grant of Hereford, August 7, 1754, was 
afterward included within the limits of Newbury. The town 
was regranted, February 5, 1772, to John Fisher and was in- 
corporated as Fishersfield, November 27, 1778. The name New- 
bury was adopted June 28, 1837, to take effect July 4, 1837. 
Tracts from this town have been severed and annexed to Goshen 
and Bradford. Zephaniah Clark was the first settler, in 1762. 

Sutton was granted by the Masonian proprietors, November 
30, 1749, to Obediah Perry and others, and called Perrystown. 
The grantees were from Haverhill and Newbury, Massachusetts. 
The charter was renewed, February 24, 1752, and again August 
13' '^77'h- It "^^^s incorporated as Sutton, April 13. 1784, and 
named from Sutton, Massachusetts. Daniel Peaslee was the 
first settler, in 1767. Within four years from that date others 
had come in, viz., Ephraim Gile, Samuel Bean, Cornelius Bean, 
Jacob Davis and Thomas Cheney. 

New London was granted by the Masonian proprietors, 
June 5, 1753, to William Symes and others, as Heidleburg. It 
was regranted as Alexandria Addition, July 7, 1773, to Jonas 
Minot and others. It was incorporated as New London, June 
23, 1779, and named for London, England. Portions of Kearsage 


Gore and Sunapee were afterwards annexed. James Lamb and 
Nathaniel Merrill were the first settlers. 

Salisbury was granted by Massachusetts, February 3, 
i736-7» ^^d called Baker's Town. It was granted by the 
Masonian proprietors, October 25, 1749, to Ebenezer Stevens 
and others and called Stevens-Town. The grantees were mainly 
from Kingston. Stephen Chase built a saw-mill and a meeting 
house in 1743. It was incorporated as Salisbury, March i, 
1768. Portions of this town and of Andover, Northfield and 
Sanbornton were combined and incorporated as Franklin, De- 
cember 24, 1828. Stevens-Town suffered from Indian depreda- 
tions in the French and Indian war. Hon. Ebenezer Webster 
was one of the first settlers, and Daniel Webster was born here. 

Andover was granted by the Masonian proprietors, Novem- 
ber 20, 1751, to Edmund Brown and others, most of whom were 
from Hampton, Hampton Falls, Kensington and Kingston. It 
was named New Breton, because some of the grantees had taken 
part in the capture of that place. It is also called Brown's- 
Town and Emery's-Town. The charter was renewed, November 
6, 1771, and it was incorporated as Andover, June 25, 1779. 
Joseph Fellows is said to have been the first settler, in 1761. 

Hill was granted by the Masonian proprietors, September 
14, 1753, to a company of men from Chester and was called New 
Chester; incorporated as such, November 20, 1778. Bridge- 
water was set off and incorporated February 12, 1788. Por- 
tions of Hill and Bradgewater were incorporated as Bristol, 
June 24, 1819. The name of the town was changed to Hill, 
January 14, 1837, in honor of Gov. Isaac Hill. The first settlers 
were Captain Cutting Favor and Carr Huse, in 1768. 

Alexandria was granted by the Masonian proprietors, June 
i» 1753. to Joseph Butterfield, Jr., and others. The charter 
was renewed, March 13, 1767. It was regranted to Jonas Minot 
and others, July 7, 1773. Danbury was set off and incorporated, 
June 18, 1795. 

On the northern frontier, east of the Merrimack and stretch- 
ing to the boundary of Maine, the Masonian proprietors granted 
a series of towns. 

Sanbornton was granted December 31, 1748, to John San- 
born and others, twenty-three of whom were from Stratham, 


nineteen from Exeter, and seventeen from Hampton. The first 
settlement was made in 1764, by Samuel Copp, Daniel Fifield, 
Samuel Sheppard, Andrew Rowen, David Dustin, and Moses 
and Thomas Danforth. The town was first called First Town- 
ship. It was incorporated as Sanbornton, March i, 1770. San- 
bornton Bridge was set off and incorporated as Tilton, June 
30, 1869. 

Meredith was granted to Samuel Palmer and others from 
Hampton, Exeter and Stratham. It was called Palmer's-Town 
and New Salem, some of the settlers coming from Salem. It 
is also mentioned as Second Township. It was incorporated 
December 30, 1768. Laconia was set off and incorporated, July 
14, 1855. Hon. Ebenezer Smith was one of the first settlers. 

Tuftonborough was granted, December 11, 1750, to Captain 
John Tufton Mason and named for him. It was incorporated 
December 17, 1795. Several islands of Lake Winnepiseogee 
have been annexed to it. The first settlers were Benjamin Bean, 
Phinehas Graves and Joseph Peavey, in 1780. 

New Durham was granted, May 5, 1749, to Jonathan Ches- 
ley and many others from Durham. It was sometimes called 
Cochecho Township. It was incorporated, December 7, 1762. 
New Durham Gore was incorporated as Alton, June 16, 1796. 

Middleton was granted by the Masonian proprietors, April 
27, 1749, as Middletown, to Ebenezer Vamey and associates 
from Dover and Somersworth. The charter was renewed March 
21, 1770, and it was incorporated as Middleton, March 4, 1778. 
Brookfield was set off and incorporated December 30, 1794. 
There is an interesting letter from Governor Benning Went- 
worth to the Masonian proprietors, dated February 6, 1770, 
which shows that he was in habit of traveling through this town 
at least. He complains of lack of good roads and says that 
thereby he has suffered five hundred dollars and more than once 
had his life endangered. The laborers in the construction of 
the road were unpaid by the town of Middleton. He intimates 
that possibly he would pay for the making of the road himself, 
were it not "merely to indulge and enrich a set of men, whose 
neglect has been injurious to all that part of the province, and 
leaves them scarce worthy of any favor from you."** It would 

3 N. H. State Papers, XXVIL, 509-10. 


be interesting to know how he was damaged five hundred dollars. 
It may be that the lack of a good road prevented his granting 
towns further north and thus getting additional acres to his 

Wakefield was granted to John Ham and others from Dover 
and Somersworth, April 27, 1749. It was known as Ham's- 
Town, East-Town and Watertown. It was incorporated as 
Wakefield, August 30, 1774. 

Effingham was granted to a company of men mainly from 
North Hampton, June 28, 1749. The charter was renewed 
September 29, 1756. It was first called Leavittstown. The 
northern part of the town was set off and incorporated as 
Freedom, June 16, 1831. 

Thus within five years after the purchase of John Tufton 
Mason's claim to lands in New Hampshire the purchasers, called 
the Masonian proprietors, granted thirty-eight townships. Some 
of these were confirmations of grants already made by Massa- 
chusetts, but the most of them were new grants, made to peti- 
tioners, who saw the future value of the unoccupied lands and 
seized the opportunity to gain for a little what in a few years 
would be worth much. Thus hardy adventurers who could 
wield the axe and till the ground poured into the wilderness, 
taking little with them and getting from the soil both food and 
clothing suf^cient for comfort. Their houses were built of 
logs, and the furniture was such as almost any one of them 
could make. Provision at the start was made for a church and 
a school house, both rough and unattractive, especially inside, 
but for all that just as good for the advancement of religion 
and education. The frontier settlers knew, too, that they would 
have to guard against a savage and cruel foe. Privations, hard- 
ships and sufferings developed stalwart men and brave women. 
Economy and thrift soon made the poor rich. The trail became 
the bridle-path, and this soon gave way to well built roads 
for teams of oxen and carriages, to be followed by the turnpike 
and later by the railroad. 

Chapter XVIII 


Chapter XVIII 


Grant of Towns West of the Connecticut — Conditions of the Grants — Reser- 
vations to the Governor and His Friends — His Care for the Episcopal 
Church— Towns along the Southern Boundary — Hinsdale— Chesterfield— 
Walpole — Charlestown — Winchester — Richmond — Swanzey — Keene. 

THE shrewdness of the Masonian proprietors in disposing 
quickly of their lands on terms advantageous to them- 
selves was even excelled by Governor Wentworth, who had 
more land at his disposal. By the king's settlement of the 
boundary line, in 1741, as extending westward till it met tire 
king's other governments, New Hampshire was led to claim as 
far as Massachusetts extended, or to within twenty miles of 
the Hudson river. Thus all of what is now the State of Vermont 
was thought to be included in the province of New Hampshire. 
To be sure New York claimed as far east as the Connecticut, 
and the claim was, in 1764, decided in its favor, but before that 
date Governor Wentworth had made grants of one hundreed 
and twenty-nine townships, west of the Connecticut, besides 
six large grants to individuals. The townships were about six 
miles square, and the wording of the grants was almost identi- 
cal. The conditions were, that every grantee, his heirs or 
assigns, should cultivate five acres within the ferm of five years 
for every fifty acres of his share and should continue to im- 
prove and settle the same on pain of forfeiture ; that all pines 
fit for masts for the royal navy should be reserved for that use ; 
that a tract near the center of the town should be laid out in 
town lots and that every grantee should have an acre thereof; 
that there should be an annual quit rent of an ear of Indian 
corn if demanded ; that every proprietor, settler or inhabitant, 
should pay to th^ governor, his heirs and successors, yearly 
and forever, after the expiration of ten years, one shilling for 
every hundred acres owned and so proportionally. The gov- 
ernor did not forget to reserve five hundred acres in each grant 



for himself, except in a few cases, where he took eight hun- 
dred acres. He also reserved one share "for the incorporated 
society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 
one share for a Glebe for the Church of England as by law 
established, one share for the first Settled Minister of the Gospel 
and one share for the benefit of a school in said town." In 
every grant appear, among the shareholders, the names of 
several members of the Wentworth and related families, or of 
some of the council and governor's friends in Portsmouth, 
though the names of members of the House of Representatives 
are in general conspicuous for their absence, the governor not 
being on good terms with them. Theodore Atkinson, the sec- 
retary who wrote all these grants, includes himself among the 
grantees in scores of instances. It is not to be supposed that 
all these grants were made without fees, presents, or tips, to 
the governor, secretary and influential members of the council. 
That was the general custom in England, in order to secure 
favors from the court, a species of "honest graft," as it has been 
called. Thus, it may be supposed, the governor found means to 
build on another room to his rambling house at Little Harbor 
from time to time. 

The rent of one shilling for every hundred acres does not 
sound large, but since every township contained, on the average, 
twenty-five thousand acres, when twenty thousand acres were 
improved, the annual rent would be, for the one hundred and 
twenty-nine townships, something over five thousand dollars, 
a comfortable support for the governor, his heirs and successors. 

Notice, too, the care of the governor for the Episcopal 
Church, or Established Church of England. At that time 
Queen's Chapel in Portsmouth, to which the governor and 
Theodore Atkinson belonged, was the only church of that order 
in New Hampshire. Later, in 1773, there were but three other 
places in the province where an Episcopal missionary could 
find that a few people met on Sundays to read prayers from the 
Prayer Book and printed sermons. These towns were Alstead, 
Claremont and Haverhill. There was also one such place west 
of the Connecticut river, Springfield. The nearest of any of 
these settlements to an Episcopal clergyman was one hundred 
and thirty miles. Surely Governor Wentworth had denomina- 


tional faith to thus provide for the future of prospective 

It cannot be easily overlooked that in the course of grant- 
ing of townships on both sides of the Connecticut river the 
governor must have appropriated to himself from seventy-five 
thousand to 100,000 acres of land, whose increasing value 
depended wholly upon the hardships and labors of others. Some 
of these lands he sold. Some were claimed by John Wentworth, 
his successor in office. 

The granting and incorporation of towns in New Hamp- 
shire, by the governor with advice of council, went on with 
rapid pace. The people everywhere were as eager to get land 
as the governor was to get fees and more land. On the southern 
boundary the portions taken off from old towns of Massachu- 
setts soon became separate towns of New Hampshire. South 
Hampton was incorporated May 25, 1742, from parts of Hamp- 
ton and Kingston. Newton was incorporated December 6, 1749, 
as Newtown, and its name was changed to Newton, July 10, 1846. 
Plaistow, a part of Haverhill, was incorporated February, 1749, 
and a portion of it was set off and incorporated as Atkinson, 
September 3, 1767, named for Theodore Atkinson, a large land- 
owner therein. Hampstead, made up of parts of Haverhill and 
Amesbury, and known at first as Timberlane, was incorporated 
January 19, 1749. A very large oak in the center of the village 
was a boundary mark between old Haverhill and Londonderry. 
Salem, made up of parts of Haverhill, Methuen and Dracut, 
was incorporated May 11, 1750, and its charter was confirmed 
by the Masonian proprietors March 8, 1759. Pelham was com- 
posed of parts of old Dunstable and Dracut and was incorpora- 
ted July 5, 1746, named in honor of Thomas Pelham Holies, 
Duke of Newcastle. Its charter was confirmed by the Masonian 
proprietors April 27, 1774. 

In the valley of the Connecticut river the places that had 
suffered so much during the first French and Indian war be- 
came towns under the government of New Hampshire soon 
after peace was declared. Hinsdale, originally a part of North- 
field, Massachusetts, and sometimes called Fort Dummer, was 
incorporated September 3, 1753, and took its name from Col. 
Ebenezer Hinsdale, who had built and successfuly defended a 
garrison house therein, sometimes called a fort. 


The next town north, on the river, was Chesterfield, known 
previously as Number i. It was granted to twelve persons 
by the name of Willard and fifty-two others and incorporated 
February ii, 1752. 

Westmoreland, or Number 2, sometimes known as Great 
Meadows, was incorporated February 11, 1752. The first settlers 
came in about the year 1741. Though driven off by Indians 
they returned. Its fertile lands, easily cultivated, were the lode- 
stone of attraction. 

Walpole, or Number 3, often known as Great Falls, was 
granted by Massachusetts, in 1735-6, to John Flint and others. 
It was granted by New Hampshire February 13, 1752, to Colonel 
Benjamin Bellows and others. It was incorporated as Walpole 
at the same time, though i^ was sometimes called Bellows Town. 
The charter was renewed March 12, 1761. A part of this town, 
together with a part of Charlestown, was set off and incorporated 
as Langdon, January 11, 1787. The first settler of Walpole 
was John Kilburn, who figured bravely in the conflicts with 
the Indians. 

Charlestown, or the Number 4 of the Massachusetts grants 
of I735> was incorporated as Charlestown July 2, 1753. It was 
settled by families from Groton, Hastings and Lunenburg, 
Massachusetts, and we have seen hew the fort here was nobly 
defended by Captain Phinehas Stevens and a small company of 
men. Being the frontier township on the Connecticut river it 
stood the brunt of Indian attacks. 

Winchester was granted by Massachusetts to Josiah Wil- 
liard and others and was called Earlington, or Arlington. It 
was incorporated as Winchester July 2, 1753. 

Richmond was granted by Massachusetts, June 20, I735» 
to Captain Joseph Sylvester''s men and called Sylvester-Canada. 
It was granted by New Hampshire, February 24, 1752, to Joseph 
Blanchard and others, and was then incorporated as Richmond. 
The charter was renewed June 11, 1760. It was settled by people 
from Massachusetts and Rhode Island. 

Swanzey was granted by Massachusetts, April 20, 1733, 
to Nathaniel Hammond and others, and was called Lower 
Ashuelot, from the name of the river. It was incorporated as 
Swanzey, July 2, 1753, and named from Swanzey, Massachusetts. 


The first settlement was wiped out in the first French and Indian 
war, but it was quickly resettled after peace was declared. 
The Rev. Timothy Harring-ton was the minister here from 1741 
to 1747. 

Keene was granted by Massachusetts as Upper Ashuelot. 
The first settlement was commenced, about 1736, by Jeremiah 
Hall, Nathan Blake, Elisha Root, Josiah Fisher and others. It 
was incorporated as Keene, April 11, 1753, and named in honor 
of Sir Benjamin Keene. It has become one of the great manu- 
facturing centers of the State. 

A few other towns were granted before 1755, but since no 
settlement was made, mention of them is deferred to a later 
period. Madbury was set off from Dover and incorpoated in 
1755, and Sandown, taken from Kingston, was incorporated 
April 6, 1756. 

The outbreak of the French and Indian war, in 1755, 
caused a pause in the settlement and development of new 
towns, but after the reduction of Canada and its submission 
to the sway of England the frontier was pushed north with 
great vigor. 

Appendix A 

Appendix A 


IN the first volume of the Provincial Papers of New Hamp- 
shire, pp. 45-48, may be seen depositions by Francis Small, 
Nathaniel Boulter, John Redman and George Walton. All are 
of like import, but that of George Walton is most explicit, and 
a statement in it has been so misinterpreted as to locate a great 
house at Odiorne's Point, where David Thomson built his house. 
The deposition is here given in full : 

George Walton, of Great Island, in the Province of New Hampshire, 
yeoman, aged seventy years, or thereabouts, testifieth, that he hath been 
an inhabitant in the said province about fifty years; that most part of the 
lands he now possesses were granted by Capt. Henry Jocelyne, Steward to 
Capt. Mason, the proprietor; that this deponent doth very well know that 
Capt. Mason had many servants, and a great stock of cattle upon his lands; 
that the said servants, and others, after the decease of the said Capt. Mason, 
did imbezill and ruin the estate. And particularly Capt. Francis Norton, 
agent or steward to Capt. Mason, or his heirs, about forty years since, did 
drive from Capt. Mason's Plantation, at Piscattaway, called the great house, 
about one hundred head of great cattle, which were then usually valued at 
twenty-five pounds the head ; and as this deponent was credibly informed, 
the aforesaid cattle were sold in and about Boston by the said Norton, who 
also settled himself thereabouts, and deserted Capt. Mason's Plantation; 
that thereupon the rest of the stock, goods and implements belonging to 
Capt. Mason's Plantation were made away with by the said servants and 
others. And this deponent doth very well remember the fort built by Capt. 
Mason upon the Great Island (in the same place where the fort now 
stands), and that it was strong and substantially made, and furnished with 
great guns, of which some were brass, and were afterwards taken away 
by Major Waldern and his brother William Waldem and others, but by 
what authority this deponent never heard. And some of the guns this 
deponent did see put into a ship belonging to one Lane. And this deponent 
knows, that to the great house at Piscattaway aforesaid, there were adjoin- 
ing about one thousand acres of improved lands, marsh, meadow and 
planting grounds, which were divided and parcelled by the servants of 
Capt. Mason and others, the select, or prudential men (of the town of 
Portsmouth), as they were so called, who still enjoy the same, or their 
heirs and assigns, whereof William Vaughan and his brother-in-law have a 
large share given them by their father-in-law, Richard Cutt. And the said 
great house, by the means aforesaid, came to decay and fell down, the ruins 



being yet to be seen, out of which several good farms are now made. And 
this deponent doth very well remember that the said Capt. Mason had made 
a great plantation at a place called Newichawannock, about sixteen miles 
from that of Piscattaway, which by the means aforesaid was ruined, and 
shared among several of the said Capt. Mason's servants and others. And 
this deponent doth further say, that to his particular knowledge, the servants 
sent over by Capt. Mason, of which some are living, and those descended 
from them, have been and are the most violent opposers of the new 
proprietor, Robert Mason, Esq. And this deponent further saith, that those 
lands in Portsmouth called, both now and formerly, Strawberry Bank, were 
the planting grounds and pasture belonging to the great house at Straw- 
berry Bank, wherein Thomas Wannerton did inhabit, that was sometime 
agent for Capt. Mason, and after the death of Wannerton, who was slain 
about fifty years since, the said house and lands were possessed by Sampson 
Cane, but by what right this deponent doth not know. 

George Walton. 
Taken before me, the i8th December, 1685, 

Walter Barefoot, Dep. Governor. 

The statement above made that before 1685 the great house 
was in ruins has led into error, since it is positively known 
that the great house at Strawberry Bank was tenanted after 
that date. The explanation is given below. 

In the scramble for Capt. John Mason's property his agent, 
Thomas Wannerton, held possession of the great house with 
adjacent lands, but probably not all the lands that originally 
were connected therewith, about a thousand acres as George 
Walton testified, or the greater part of the land on which the 
city of Portsmouth now stands. The house and his share of 
land he sold to Robert Saltonstall and David Yale, April 26th, 
1644, just before his fatal trip to the Penobscot. Robert Salton- 
stall sold the same to David Selleck, soapboiler and merchant of 
Boston, August 3, 1646. David Selleck and Richard Leader, in 
1654 contracted to bring two hundred and fifty Irish nraids, 
between the ages of fourteen and forty-five and three hundred 
Irishmen, between the ages of twelve and fifty, to be gathered 
within ten miles of Cork, to New England, as we are told in 
Prendergast's Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland. Selleck lived 
in Boston a dozen years or so and died in Virginia in October, 
1654. He sold the above named house and lands at Strawberry 
Bank to Sampson Lane, master of the ship Neptune of Dart- 
mouth. All these sales are recorded in the first volume of 
Suffolk Deeds. 


Ambrose Lane, merchant of Strawberry Bank, or Piscat- 
taway, sold to Richard Leader, April 3, 1652, for one hundred 
and eighty pounds, all that house and farm at Strawberry Bank 
which he bought of David Selleck, "which was formerly Thomas 
Wannertons, together with all the Buildings, Edefifices, out 
houses, Barns, gardens, orchards, yards, ff ences ; also six Acres 
of broken up Ground, and Ten Acres of Marsh near adjoining 
and thereunto appertaining, with Two hundred acres of upland 
near adjoining unto Capt. flfrancis Champernowne." This last 
piece of land may have been in Greenland. Richard Leader sold 
the house and land to John and Richard Cutts, October i, 


On the division of their estates in 1662 the great house and 
adjoining lands fell to John Cutt, who in his will, May 8, 1680, 
gave to his son, Samuel Cutt, "my house commonly cailed the 
Great house with the orchard and field adjoining." 

Samuel Cutt died October 15, 1698, and his widow, Eleanor, 
married Thomas Phipps, who sold, May 8, 1700, to William 
Partridge Jr., land "part whereof is part of that ground on 
which the Great House stands, that is, the southerly end of the 
great house & the stack of chimneys." It was bounded "with sd 
Phipps own land being that whereon the other end of the great 
house did formerly stand, together with the end of the house now 
standing on sd land with the chimneys aforesaid & the Cellar on 
which it standeth."2 

So George Walton was correct in saying tTiat in 1685 the 
Great House was tn ruins, although one end of it continued in 
use for many years. William Partridge and wife Hannah sold 
this, August II, 171 1, to John Knight, "part of that ground on 
which a hous called the grate house stood." John Knight be- 
queathed the land to his son. Temple Knight, on whose death 
his brother, John Knight gained possession of it, and ke be- 
queathed ft to his son, George Knight, who sold it to Jame3 
Hickey, about 1770. 

The great house is mentioned in deeds in years^ 1692-J5-. 
Samuel Cutt leased it to John Partridge, March 20, 1693, for 

1 N. H. Prov. Deeds, VI., 65, 64. 
2N. H. Prov. Deeds, VI., 417. 

3 N. H. Prov. Deeds, IX., 609, 176, 531. Sea several depositions con- 
cerning it in N. H. Court Papers, vol. for 1693-4, PP- 410-19. 


four years, at twelve pounds annually. It was used as an inn. 
Thomson's house at Odiorne's Point was never called a 
Great House, nor was it located where it could be used con- 
veniently as an inn in the early years of the settlement. There 
is some evidence that the inn kept by Henry Sherburne at 
Sanders Point, in 1647, was called a Great House, and that a 
ferry connected it with Strawberry Bank. 

Appendix B 

Appendix B 

In the first volume of New Hampshire Provincial Papers, 
pp. 136, 137, may be seen depositions taken from records of 
old Norfolk County Court. They are as follows : 

I, John Wheelwright, pastor of the church of Salisbury, doe testify 
that when I, with others, came to set down at Exeter, we purchased of the 
Indians, to whom (so far as we could learn) the right did belong, a certain 
tract of land about thirty miles square to run from Merrimack river east- 
ward, and so up into the country, of which lands we had a graunt in writing 
signed by them. 

John Wheelwright. 

April 15, 1668. 

Mr. Edward Colcord testifieth to all above written and farther saith 
that one northerly bound mentioned in our agreement with Wehannownowit, 
the chief Sagamore, was the westerly part of Oyster River, called by the 
Indians, Shankhassick, which is about four miles northerly beyond Lam- 
periele River. 

We, the aforesaid witnesses, doe furtlher testify that they of the town 
of Exeter did dispose of and possesse divers parcels of land about Lampreel 
River by virtue of sd Indian right before such time as it was actually taken 
in by the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts without interruption of Dover 
or any other. 

Mr. Samuel Dudley doth testify that he did see the agreement in writing 
between the town of Exeter and the Sagamores for that land which is above 
mentioned and the said Sagamores hands to th* same. Sworn before the 
Court the 14th 2d mo. 1668. 

Thomas Bradbury rec. 

These depositions seem to refer plainly to the deeds of 1638. 
Recently I have seen depositions found in a folder of Court 
Files at Concord, N. H., No. 17795, i" connection with a case 
that was tried in the year 171 1, Capt. Joseph Smith of Hampton 
vs. Robert Wadleigh of Exeter. They are as follows: 

The Deposition of Henry Roby & Tho: King & Mr Stanian Testifieth 
that there was a Combinacon on Record in Exiter bareing date 1639: and a 
great many hands to the sayd Combinacon wch did ingage them selves to 
owfl the King & his lawes & to submit to *he same. 

Sworn before the Court held at Hampton the 13th of tke 8th mo 1663. 

Thomas Bradbury, Rec. 



The deposition of John Wheelwright. This deponent testifieth That 
himself wth some others who were to set down at Exiter did imploy Edward 
Colcord to purchase for them as he remembers a certayn tract of land from 
Oyster River to Merrimack of the Indians for which they gave him ten or 
twelve pounds in money & had a grant thereof signed by some Sagamors 
with their marks upon it of wch Runnawitt was one. Sworn before the 
Court at Hampton the 13th of the 8th mo 1663. 

Tho: Bradbury rec. 

The deposition of Edward Colcord who sworn saith That the said 
Edward being imployed by Mr John Wheelwright & Company : Likewise by 
the perswasion of Capt. Wiggin to buy a certayn tract of land from Oyster 
River towards Merrimack, the wch parcell of land the said Edward did buy 
for them & had a firme deed for it under Sagamore Runawits hand & 
others wth him & that this people seated upon this land the general Court 
have owned to be a towne, as likewise the town of Hampton have done 
from time to time; and accepting of them by sending for their votes, And 
that wee the town of Hampton have owned them from time to time. Sworn 
before the Court at Hampton the 13th 8th mo 1663. 

Tho: Bradbury rec. 

This is a true Copie of the originall on file as attest Tho : Bradbury rec. 

These depositions differ from those cited above and seem 
to refer to the Wheelwright deed of 1629, which alone was 
signed by the sagamore Runawit. Edward Colcord was only 
thirteen years old in 1629, and could not then have been em- 
ployed as an agent in purchasing land. If the depositions are 
genuine, there is a defect of memory on the part of both Wheel- 
wright and Colcord, for they must mean the deed of 1638, which 
was not signed by sagamore Runawitt. The attested copy ot 
the depositions seems to be in the handwriting of Richard 
Chamberlain, recorder at Portsmouth and secretary of the 
Province, 16807. 

In the same folder of Court Files, No. 17795, is found the 
original deed of gift, or indenture, by which Captain Thomas 
Wiggin conveyed to the town of Exeter a large tract of land 
adjoining Hampton. It has been hidden away for over two 
hundred years and was never recorded, so far as has been 
learned. Governor Bell, in his History of Exeter, hints at such 
a gift as having been made before 1656. Probably what he said 
is based upon a town record, a copy of which appears also in 
the same folder of Court Files. The town record is as follows: 

At a town meeting the (28) day (2) mon 1656 it was ordered that a 
petision shall be sent to next generall Corte for to have Captan Wiggin deede 


of gift confermed to the town of the land and madow, and that mr bartaline 
of ipsigd [William Bartholomew of Ipswich] should presente the petision. 

Samuel Thing, town clerk. 

The deed, or indenture, is clearly written in ancient style, 
and the three signatures have three different seals in red wax. 
It is here published for the first time and is the basis of many 
grants : 

This Indenter Made the first day of the 2d Month Aprill in the yeare 
of Our Lord God 1639 betweene Thomas Wiggins of Pascatiqua in New 
England Gent sole agent and deputye for the right honorable William Vis- 
count Saye and Scale and Robert Lord Brooke Sir Arthur Hasellricke Knt 
and Baronett Sir Arthur [Richard] Saltingstone Knt and certaine other 
Gents of the Kingdome of England Lords and owners of the plantation of 
Pascatiqua in New England and also Lords and owners of all that tract of 
Land leying or being on the south side of the River called Pascatiqua from 
the sea imto the fall of the said river and three Miles in the Maine Land 
from the said river (except six thousand acres of the said tract of land 
leying and being towards the sea) of the one p'te and Captain Richard 
Morris, Nicholas Needam Isaac Grosse Rulers of the Towne of Exeter for 
and in the behalfe of the said Towne of the other p'te Wittnesseth that 
the said Thomas Wiggins for good causes and considerations him thereunto 
especially moveing hath given granted and confirmed and by these presents 
doth give grant and confirme unto the said Richard Morris, Nicholas 
Needam, Isaac Grosse their heires or assignes forever all that p'te or parcell 
of the said tract of Land from ye said fall towards the sea unto the mouth 
of a certaine creeke one such side thereof theire Lyeth little Narrowe plats of 
Mash Grounds wch have been for two years last past in the occupation of 
John Wheelwright Pastore of the Church of Exeter being by estimation 
from the fall of the said river unto the said Creeke 3 quarters of a Mile 
or there abouts bee it more or lesse, and from the said River into the Maine 
Lands three miles and also all and singular woods under woods and Trees 
growing or being in or upon the same premises herby given and granted, 
wth all p'cells commodityes advantages and hereditaments whatsoever be- 
longing or appertaining unto the said p'misses herby given granted & con- 
firmed or to any parts therof, except and alwaies received [sic] unto the 
said Thomas Wiggins, and the said Lords and owners of the said p'mises 
before specified and mentioned theire heires and assignes agents and deputies 
and every of them free liberty to take fish at or about the said fall of the 
said River p'portionably according to that right wch belongs unto them to 
have or to hold the said part or p'cell of Land wth all p'fitts comodities 
and hereditaments before in these p'sents given granted and confirmed (ex- 
cept before excepted) unto the said Richard Morris, Nicholas Needam, Isaac 
Grosse, theire heires and assignes for ever, to use of the said Towne of 
Exeter for ever more ; yielding and paying yearly unto the said Thomas 
Wiggins and the said Lords and owners aforesaid theire heires and assignes 


for every hundred acres of Lands wch shall bee converted into use 2p 
stearling Money being lawfully demanded p'vided alwaies and upon Con- 
dition that they the said Richard Morris, Nicholas Needam, Isaac Grosse 
theire heires and assignes shall doe theire best indeavor to defend and 
maintaine the right and interest of the said Lords and owners theire heirei 
and assignes agents and deputies of and in the said tract of Land before 
specified and mentioned against all invaders and intruders seditious prac- 
tises or any that shall doe them violence or violate there right, wch if they 
or any of them shall refuse or neglect to doe, that then they or any of 
them refusing or neglecting soe to doe shall forfeite theire Right or estates 
given granted and confirmed as aforesd. And the said Thomas Wiggins for 
himselfe and for the said Lords and owners aforesaid theire heires and 
assignes doth p'miss Grant and agree that hee the said Thomas Wiggins 
and the said Lords and owners aforesd shall doe theire best indeavor to 
defend and Maintaine the right and title of the said Richard Morris, Nicholas 
Needam, Isaac Grosse, theire heires and assignes of and in the said part of 
the said tract of Land by these p'sents given and granted against all in- 
truders invaders seditious practices or any that shall doe them violence or 
violate theire right, given and granted as aforesd, wch if the said Lords 
and owners theire agents and deputies shall refuse or neglect soe to doe 
That then the said Richard Morris, Nicholas Needam, Isaac Grosse, theire 
heires or assignes shall bee free from the said p'miss and Condition aforesd. 
In witness whereof the p'ties to these p'sents have interchangeablie sette 
theire hands & scales the day and yeare first above written. 

Richard Moris (seal) 

Nicholas Needham (seal) 
Is Grosse (seal) 

Sealed and delivered in the p'sence of 

John Whelwright 

George Smyth 


In the same folder may be found depositions by John 
Redman senior, aged 66, March 8, 1710; Jethro Parson of Exeter, 
aged about 33, March 8, 1710; Israel Smith aged 40 and Jacob 
Smith aged about 38, March 8, 1710; Robert Smith aged 61 or 
thepeabouts and Nathaniel Boulter aged 50 or thereabouts, Oct. 
14, 1673; Philemon Bleak aged about 40, Andrew Wiggin aged 
about 30, and John Foulsham aged about 34, 19th of 8th mo. 
1671 ; Samuel Dalton aged about 40, 12 of second month, 1670; 
John Samborne to an event in 1650; William Taylor, Oct. 14, 
1673: Benjamin Rawlings "of fool age"; Ephraim Marston and 
Joseph Sweet of full age, August 14, 171 1; Jonathan Robison 
and David Robison to an event that occurred in 1669, sworn in 
court June 7, 1711; Moses Moris of full age; Samuel Elkins of 


full age; William Sanborne of full age; and Henry Robey, 
James Sinkler, Henry Wadleigh, Nicholas Gilman, and John 
Thing, all of full age. 

Appendix C 

Appendix C 

The statement made on pages 48 and 367, that Newton and 
South Hampton came within the limits of Hampton after the 
boundary line was fixed needs correction. Those towns were 
carved out of the strip taken from Massachusetts and never 
formed a part of Hampton, though some writers have so as- 
serted, among them Alonzo G. Fogg in his Gazetteer of New 
Hampshire. South Hampton was incorporated May 25, 1742, 
only one year after the fixing of the boundary, and Newton 
was incorporated as Newtown December 6, 1749. 


Appendix D 

Appendix D 

It has been stated on page 298 that when the commissioners 
appointed in 1887 resurveyed the boundary between New Hamp- 
shire and Massachusetts, they were unable to find in either 
State the plan made by Richard Hazzen in 1741 and had to 
send to London and get a copy of the plan found in the Public 
Record Office. A fac-simile of that plan was published in one 
of their reports. Recently the writer hereof had the good 
fortune to stumble upon a copy of Richard Hazzen's plan, made 
with great clearness and accuracy. It was used in a law suit 
between Samuel Johnson Jr. and Joseph Platts at his Majesty's 
Inferior Court of Common Pleas holden in Portsmouth, Sep- 
tember 5, 1751, and has been concealed in a bundle of court 
files from that time to this. While the published plan from 
London extends only to the Connecticut river, this copy found 
extends the plan of the surveyor to the Hudson river, indicating 
the principal streams, mountains, lakes and villages, and a few 
houses of the settlers. This plan locates the Boundary Pine a 
little east of Beaver River and Fort Dummer is west of the 
Connecticut, thus settling a disputed location of that fort. The 
copy of Hazzen's plan was found in folder No. 5382. 




Index of Subjects and Places 

Aix-la-Chapelle Treaty — 345 

Alexandria — 360 

Allenstown — 245 

Alton — 361, 269 

Amherst — 354 

Annapolis — 327 

Andover — 360 

Antinomianism — 42, 61 

Arrowsic — 253 

Ashuelot — 338, 332 

Auburn — 244 

Back River — 23, 34 

Baptists — 61 

Barnstead — 268 

Barrington — 244 

Bedford — 354 

Belmont — 269 

Bible— 64 

Berwick Massacre — 177 

Bloody Point — 11, 19, 22 

Boundaries — 53-6, 183-6, 241 

Bound House — 47, 59 

Boscawen — 280, 342 

Black Point — 224 

Bow — 270 

Bradford — 359 

Brentwood — 47 

Bridgewater — 360 

Bristol— 33, 360 

Brookfield — 269, 361 

Canada, Invasion of — 327 

Candia — 244 

Canterbury — 268 

Casco Massacre — 221 

Charlestown — 368, 338, 329 

Charter of Massachusetts forfeited- 

Chester — 244 

Chesterfield — 368 

Chichester — 268 

Claims of Mason — 8, 9, ^^, 85, 117, 

120, 129, 137-41, 166, 153 
Cochecho attacked — 187 
Cochecho Massacre — 172 
Combinations — 49, 106 
Commission of Governor — 103 
Concord— 343, 357 
Contoocook — 280, 341, 342, 357 
Corporations — 60 
Coulraine — 268 
Council of N. E. — 160 
Council of N. H. — 104-5 
Courts — 73, 104, 116, 160, 209, 277 
Crimes — 115 
Danbury — 360 
Deerfield — 244 
Derry — 243 

Death Penalty — 115, 135 
Dover— 36-9, 55-6, 255 
Depositions — 19, 75, 107, 109, 138, 

158, 382 
Dover Neck— 11, 21, 33, 34, 38, 39 
Dover Combination — 23, 37, 38 
Dublin — 352 
Dummer Fort — 321 
Dunstable — 167, 223 
Dunbarton — 355 
Durham — 279 
Effingham — 362 
Endicott Rock — 54 
Episcopalians — 31-2, 143, 277, 366 
Epping— 47 
Exeter — 41-7, 56, 150 
Exeter Combination — 44, 19, 22, 379- 

Farmington — 244 




Falmouth, Me. — 242 

Ferries — 32 

Fishermen — 4, 15, 90 

Fish Trade— 278 

Fitzwilliam — 351 

Flax — 239 

Four Towns — 29, 41 

Fort— 208, 267, 340, 329, 339, 373 

Franklin — 360 

Freedom — 362 

Freemen — 116, 56 

Fremont — 47 

French and Indians — 171, ff 

Gilford — 269 

Grants of Land — 32, 6, 8, 20, 349, 362, 

Gilmanton — 269 

Great Island — 17, 22, 32, 208, 373 
Gilsum— 353 

Great House — ^29, 32, 18, 19, 106, 373 
Great Works — 15, 16 
Greenland — 40 
Greenville — 350 
Goffstown — 355 
Governor's Island — 269 
Governors royal in N. H. — 125, 157, 

166, 193, 197, 210-I2, 234, 265, 271, 

Gratuities — 210 
Harrisville — 353 
Hampstead — 367 
Hampton — 41, 43, 48, 198 
Harvard College — 36, 76, 143 
Henniker — 357 
Hill— 360 
Hillsborough — 358 
Hinsdale — 267, 340, 329 
Hooksett — 244 
Hilton's Point — 10, 21, 33-4 
Hopkinton— 341, 357 
Indians — 48, 89 flF, 204, 330 ff, 379 
Industries — 239 
Inner Light — 63, 69 
Intolerance — 60, 61, 65 
Iron Ore — 240 
Isles of Shoals — 5, 15, 22, 23, 25, 32, 


Jaffrey— 352 

Jesuit Missionaries — 251 

Jurisdiction of Mass. — 103, 164, 56- 

61, IZ, 77-8 
Keene — 332, 369 
Kittery — 10, 21, 48 
Kingston — 216 
Kingswood — 268 
Laconia, Province of — 13-15 
Laconia — 361 
Land-Grabbing — 3 1 1 
Laws of N. H. — 114, 117, 278, 235 
Legislation, early — 114, 117 
Little Harbor — 8, 16, 19 
Londonderry — 41, 243 
Loudon — 268 
Louisburg — 323-4 
Lovewell's War — 251 
Lumber — 206, 239, 278 
Lyndeborough — 354 
Madbury — 369 

Maine, Province of — 6, 7, 12 
Manchester — 244 
Marlborough — 352 
Mariana — 6, 166 
Mason — 350 
Mason heirs — 77-9, 85 
Mason Hall — 9, 25, 166 
Masonia — 24 

Masonian proprietors — 305, 362 
Meredith — 361 
Middleton — 269, 361 
Mil ford — 354 

Mills— 16, 19, 32, 39, 40, 108, 109, 227 
Milton — 244 
Monson — 354 
Money, paper — 236, 274 
Mont Vernon — 354 
Nantucket, Mass. — 39 
Nelson— 353 
New Boston — 355 
New London — 359 
Newbury — 359 
New Castle — 17, 213, 216 
New Durham — 269, 361 
New Hampshire — 13, 23, 25, 4, 78, 85, 




Newfoundland — 25 

Newichawannock — 26, 29, 40, 118 

New Ipswich — 350 

Newmarket — 47 

Norfolk County — 73, 379 

Northam — 31, 36, 41 

Northfield— 268 

Norridgewock — 220, 251, 257 

Northwood — 244 

Nottingham — 244 

Number 4, 331, 334ff 

Nutfield — 242 

Odiorne's Point — 8, 10, 32, 222, 373, 

Oyster River — 37-8, 23, 43, 176, 182, 

Patent of N. H.— 77-9 
Pascataqua — 8, 15, 373 
Peace Treaty of Boston — 261 
Pemaquid — 220 
Pemaquid Treaty — 180-2 
Pelham — 367 
Pembroke — 245 
Penacook — 266 
Penalties — 240 
Peterborough — 353 
Petition of Dover — 79 
Petition of Exeter — 80 
Petition of Portsmouth — 31, 57, 80 
Petition of Hampton — 80 
Petition to King — 140 
Pittsfield— 268 
Plaistow — 367 
Port Royal — 225-7 
Portsmouth — 31-2, 41, 163 
Portsmouth Treaty — 229 
Poplin — 47 
Protestantism — 63 
Puritans — 42, 57, 61, 63-4, 73, 82 
Quakers — 61-73, 108, 221 
Quebec Expedition — 227 
Raymond — 244 

Rebellion, led by Governor — 133 ff 
Records Stolen — 150, 194, 201 
Rendezvous — 222 
Representatives, House of — 320, 235, 


Richmond — 368 

Rights, legal and natural — 129 

Rindge— 351 

Rochester — 244, 344 

Roxbury — 352 

Rumford — 270, 341 

Ryswick, Peace of — 188 

Sagamore Creek — 186, 16, 32 

Salmon Falls — 177 

Salmon Brook — 180 

Sandy Beach — 179, 22 

Salisbury — 360 

Sanbornton — 360 

Sandown — 369 

Scotchmen — 8, 68, 76, 142 

Scotch-Irish — 242 

Sanders Point — 22 

Settlement, first — 7, 10, 23, 24 

Seabrook — 47 

Sham Fight — 93 

Sherburne Plain — 186 

Sheep Raising — 240 

Slavery — 94, 247 

Squamscot — 4, 15, 11, 40, 42, 47, 55 

Sligo, Ireland — 200 

Stoddard — 353 

Strafford — 244 

Stratham — 39, 47 

Strawberry Bank — 19, 20, 29-31, 106, 

Suffrage — lii 
Sullivan— 353 
Superstition — 113 
Surrey— 353 
Sutton— 359 
Swanzey — 368, 330 
Tar Trade — 239 

Taxes — 38, 39, 148, 160, 236, 247 
Temple— 354 
Tilton — 361 

Thomson's Point — 9, 10 
Town Meetings — 31 
Triennial Act — 247 
Troy— 351 

Tuftonborough — 361 
Upper Gilmanton — 269 
Utrecht, Treaty of— 228 



Wakefield — 269, 362 
Walpole— 368 
Warner — 358 
Warner House — 323 
Washington — 358 
Weare— 355 
Webster — 280 
Wells, Settlement of— 45 
Wells Massacre — 221 

Westmoreland — 368, 330 
Wheelwright Deed — 40-43, 215, 243 
Wheelwright Pond — 178 
Winnacunnet — 47, 48 
Wilton — 351 
Winchester — 339, 368 
Windham — 243 
Witchcraft — 74, 75 

Index of Names 

Abbot, Sarah, 21 
Abbot, Walter, 21 
Adams, Chas., 139, 184 
Adams, Hugh, 256, 279 
Jonathan, 353 
Joseph, 268 
Alexander, Ebenezer, 339 

Randal, 243 
Allen, Elijah, 333 

Samuel, 166, 201, 202, 209, 213, 214, 

215. 303, 305, 306 
Samuel, heirs, 312 
Thomas, 215 
Allison, Samuel, 243 
Ambler, John, 185 
Ambrose, Alice, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 
Anderson, Allen, 243 

James, 243 
Andrews, Samuel, 54 
Andros, Edmund, 160, 161 
Annis, Daniel, 359 
Arin, William, 176 
Ashurst, William, 234 
Atherton, Humphrey, 'J'T) 
Atkinson, Joseph, 58 
Atkinson, Theodore, 208, 235, 260, 
261, 267, 269, 271, 276, 277, 287, 
304, 305, 306, 327, 366 
Ault, John, 23 

Remembrance, 23 
Austin, Joseph, 34 
Avery, Oliver, 338 

Bachelder, Nathaniel, 134 
Bachiler, Mary, 49 

Stephen, 45, 47, 48 
Bacon, Ebenezer, 2>2>2> 
Baker, Christine, 174 

James, 2>2>Z 

Mark, 134 

Thomas, 174, 254, 331 
Baldwin, Beatrice, 20 

Henry, 20 
Barber, John, 76 

Robert, 223 
Barefoot, Walter, 69, 79, 117, 118, 127, 

n2, 138, 157, 158, 159 

Barker, William, 352 
Barlow, George, 44 
Barnard, Jonathan, 359 
Barnes, Mary, 19 
Barnet, John, 243 
Batchelder, Breed, 353 
Beadle, Mary, 49 
Beal, Arthur, 23 

Edward, 23 

Joseph, 23 
Beaman, John, 2)Z2) 
Bean, Benjamin, 361 

Cornelius, 359 

John, 76, 227, 343 

Samuel, 359 
Beard, Joseph, 134, 139 

Robert, 344 

William, 2)2» 9i 
Beck, Henry, 37 



Belcher, Gov. Jonathan, 234, 270, 317. 
268, 284, 285 

Andrew, 270 
Bellingham, Richard, 73 
Bellomont, Richard, Earl of, 200, 202, 

203, 209 
Bellows, Benjamin, 368 
Bennett, Abraham, 256 

Arthur, 21 

Mary, 21 
Berry, Benjamin, 21 

Elizabeth, 21, 22 

James, 22 

Jane, 22 

John, 22 

Joseph, 22 

William, 22, 30 
Bickford, Thomas, 184 

William, 339 
Bigelow, Benjamin, 351 
Billing, John, 30 
Bishop, Josiah, 342 
Blake, Nathan, 332, 339, 369 

Samuel, 223, 268 
Blanchard, Hannah, 223 

Joseph, 368 

Lydia, 223 

Nathaniel, 223 

Susan, 223 

Thomas, 258 
Blazo, William, 268 
Bond, Nicholas, 221 
Boulter, Nathaniel, 373 
Bowden, William, 37 
Bracket, Anthony, 23, 30, 96 

William, 23 
Bradley, Jonathan, 343 

Samuel, 343 
Bradstreet, Dudley, 159 

Simon, 39, 73, 159, 161, 162 
Breck, Arnold, 188 
Breed, Nathaniel. 353 
Brewster, John, 20, 135 

Mary, 20, 187 
Bridgman, Orlando, 329 
Brookin, Mary, 22 

William, 22 

Brown, Arthur, 278 

Edmund, 360 

Ephraim, 333 

Jacob, 23 

John, 337, 351 

Sarah, 23 

Timothy, 333 

William, 4 

Browne, , 32 

Bryant, Walter, 296 
Bulgar, Richard, 44 
Bulkley, Peter, 159 
Bullard, Ebenezer, 351 

John, 332 

Joseph, 351 
Bunker, John, 226 
Buntin, Robert, 245 
Burbank, Caleb, 341, 342 

Jonathan, 341, 342 

Mrs., 341, 342 

Moses, 280 

Samuel, 341, 342 
Burdett, George, 34 
Burges, Eliseus, 234 
Burnet, Gilbert, 265 

William, 265 
Burnham, Elizabeth, 256 

Jeremiah, 183 

Robert, 58, 139, 256 
Buss, John, 39, 183, 279 

Joseph, 176 

William, 176 
Butterfield, , 223 

Joseph Jr., 360 

Mrs., 223 

Samuel, 224 

Cammock, Thomas, 15, 17 
Camond, Abel, 37 
Canney, Joseph, 21, 134 

Thomas, 21, 38, 70 
Carr, John, 256 

Robert, 59, ^^ 
Cartwright, George, 59, ^^ 
Chadbourne, Humphrey, 19 

Paul, 19 

William, 16, 19 



Chamberlain, Jacob, 269 

Richard, 119, 120, 127, 128 
Champernowne, Francis, 17, 33, 37, 

38, 40, 58, 78, 97, 138. 375 
Chandler, John, 351 
Chase, Stephen, 360 
Chatherton, Michael, 20 

Thomas, 20 
Chatterton, Michael, 30 
Cheney, Thomas, 359 
Chesley, George, 256 

James, 226 

Jonathan, 259, 361 

Philip, 33, 226 

Samuel, 225, 226 

Thomas, 188 
Choate, Benjamin, 216 
Church, John, 186, 225, 227 
Clark, Mrs., 332 

Elizabeth, 75 

James, 243 

John, 75 

Samuel, 75 

Zephaniah, 359 
Clarke, Jonathan, 54 
Clements, Job, 34, 106, no, in, 127 

Robert, "Ji 
Clendenin, Archibald, 243 
Clough, Jeremiah, 342 
Cobbett, Mary, 138 
Coffin, John, 280 

Peter, in, 167, 175, 196, 208, 266 
Colburn, Thomas, 355 
Colcord, Edward, 37, 92 

Peter, 256 
Cole, Eunice, 74, 75 

Mathew, 30 

William, 8 
Coleman, Anna, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 

Eleazar, 22 

Jabez, 216, 258 

Mary, 22 
Colmer, Abraham, 7 

Converse, , 178 

Cook, Thomas, 342 

Coole William, 44 
Cooper, William, 19 
Copp, Samuel, 361 
Corbet, Abraham, 58, 79 
Corliss. Timothy, 356 
Cornel, George, 288 
Cotton, John, 14 

Roland, 351 

Seaborn, 80, 147 

William, 141 
Cram, John, 44 

Cranfield, Edward, 125, 126, 127, 129, 
131, 132, 133, 134, 136, 137, 139, 
141, 142, 144, 147, 150, 152 
Crawley, Thomas, 44 
Critchett, Elias, 21 

Martha, 21 
Crommett, Jeremiah, 228 
Cromwell, Philip, 34, 135 

Thomas, 48 
Cross, John, ^il^ 48 

Nathan, 258 
Crowther, John, 20, 30 
Cummings, Mrs. John, 223 
Cunningham, Mr., 228 
Curtis, Dodavah, 21 

Elizabeth, 21 
Cutt, John, 57, 76, 103, 106, III, 375 

Michael, 107 

Nathaniel, 107 

Richard, 31, 32, 33, 57, ^l, 76, 106, 

Samuel, 375 
Sarah, 107 
Ursula, 186 

Dalton, Samuel, 80, 106, no 

Timothy, 48 
Dam, John, 2>Z, 2>7 
Danforth, Moses, 361 

Nathaniel, 280 

Thomas, 361 
Daniel, Bridgett, 108 

Naomi, 75 

Thomas, 80, 103, 106, 108, 127, 135 
Davidson, John, 352 
Davis, David, 186 



Jacob, 359 

James, 185, 228 

John, 139, 182 

Moses, 256 
Dean, John, 182 
Dearborne, Godfreye, 44 
Denbow, Peter, 185 
Denison, Mary, 107 
Derry, John, 185 
Dewey, Ebenezer, 353 
Diamond, John, 23 
Dodd, John, 340 
Dolloff, Catherine, 227 

Richard, 227 
Door, Jonathan, 344 
Dorman, Ephraim, 332 
Douglass, Joseph, 176 
Dow, Henry, 119, 135, 162, 208 

Sarah, 22 

Thomas, 22 
Downing, Emmanuel, 55 
Downs, Ebenezer, 257 

Gershom, 344 

Mary, 187 

Thomas, 227 
Drake, Jane, 22 

Nathaniel, 22 
Drew, Benjamin, 184 

Francis, 184 

John, 184 

Marie Anne, 226 

Mary, 226 

Thomas, 184, 222, 226 
Dudley, Joseph, 159, 161, 210, 225, 

233. 234 

Samuel, 45, 73, 80 

True, 324 

William, 260 
Dummer, Jeremy, 234 
Dunbar, David, 272, 273, 275, 276, 

317, 318, 319, 325 
Duncan, Joseph, 176 
Dunning, Andrew, 254 
Dustin, David, 361 

Hannah, 188 

Thomas, 38 

Elastman, Ebenezer, 266 
Easton, Nicholas, 47 
Edgerly, Rebecca, 2^ 

Thomas, 23, 139, 184 
Elkins, Henry, 44, 226 

Moses, 216 
Ellins, Abigail, 20 

Anthony, 20 
Eliot, Robert, 80, iii, 134, 137, 167, 

Ely, Joseph, 337 
Emerson, Judith, 185 
Emery, Anthony, 33, 37 

Caleb, 356 

Edward, 280 
English, Joseph, 223 
Estow, William, 48 
Evans, , 176 

Benjamin, 260 

Daniel, 245 

Ezekiel, 359 

John, 260 

Wiliam, 260 
Eyre, Thomas, 14 

Farnsworth, Samuel, 333 

Stephen, 331 
Farwell, Joseph, 258 
Fassett, John, 351 
Favor, Cutting, 360 
Fellows, Joseph, 360 
Fernald, Joanna, 19 

John, 324 

Reginald, 19, 21 

Renald, 19, 30, 31, 33, 73 

Samuel, 58 

Thomas, 21 
Field, Darby, 37, 38, 40, 44, 45 

Joseph, 139 

Zachary, 139 
Fifield, Benjamin 

Daniel, 361 
Fisher, John, 359 

Josiah, 330, 369 
Fletcher, John, 76 
Flint, John, 368 



Floyd, John, 178 
Follet, John, 37 

William, Ti 
Folsom, Ephraim, 226 

John, 58, 344 
Foulsom, John, 142 
Fost, Humphrey, 227 
Foster, Abijah, 351 
Fowles, John, 353 
Fox, John, 253 
French, 258 

Nathan, 339 
Frost, Andrew, 269 

Charles, 93, 94, 95 

John, 261, 269, 339 
Frye, Jonathan, 259 
Fryer, Nathaniel, 57, 80, 97, 137, 164, 

167, 196, 201 
Fuller, Rachel, 74 
Furber, Wiliam, 33, -^T, 38, 139 
Furbish, William, 68, 109 
Furral, Thomas, 20 

Galusha, Rachel, 223 
Gardner, Henry, 14 
Garland, Jacob, 227 

Peter, 37 
Gardner, John, 288 
Gedney, Bartholomew, 159 
Gee, Henry, 19 

Ralph, 19 
George, Stephen, 356 
Gerrish, John, 139, 142, 167, 175, 208 

Paul, 275 

Richard, 235 

Stephen, 280 
Gibbons, Ambrose, 6, 16, 17, 21, 24, 
30, 56 

Edmond, 55 

Rebecca, 21 
Gibson, Richard, 31 

Samuel, 358 
Gilbert, Samuel, 353 
Gile, Ephraim, 359 
Giles, Mark, 222 
Gilman, 226 

Daniel, 343 

Edward, 134 

Elizabeth, 108 

Ezekiel, 324 

Jacob, 226, 227 

John, 80, 103, 108, 127, 261 

Moses, 134 

Stephen, 226, 228 
Gilson, Michael, 333 
Goddard, John, 21, 73 

Welthean, 21 
Godfrey, Edward, 13 
Godsoe, Jane, 21 

William, 21 
Goffe, John, 354 
Goodale, Thomas, 338 
Goodenough, Daniel, 352 
Gookin, Daniel, TZ 

Nathaniel, 268 
Gordon, Alexander, 76 
Gorges, Ferdinando, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 

78, 79 
Gorham, John, 355 
Goss, 22 

Jane 22 
Gould, Amos, 358 

Benjamin, 355 

Nathan, 338 
Gove, Edward, iii, 133, 134, 135, 13G 

John, 134 
Graffort, Thomas, 167 
Grant, John, 352 
Graves, Phinehas, 361 

William, 185 
Gregg, James, 243 
Green, Henry, 135, 167, 196 

Jonathan, 221 
Greenfield, Samuel, 48 
Gridley, Jeremiah, 353 
Griffith, George, 14 
Gronard, Edmund, 351 
Gunn, Samuel, 340 
Guy, Edwin, 14 

Haburne, George, 44 
Haines, Samuel, 33, 37, 80 
Hale, Enoch, 351 
John, 351 



Nathan, 351 

Robert, 355 

Samuel, 324 
Hall, Edward, 223 

Hester, 185 

Jeremiah, 369 
Hall, John, 34, 37, 139, 185 

Joseph, 139 

Knigsley, 196, 201 

Ralph, 34, 44, III 
Ham, Joseph, 255 

Tamsen, 222 
Hamilton, Otho, 288 
Hammond, Nathaniel, 368 
Hanson, John, 257, 259 

Mary, -jz 

Thomas, 58 

Tobias, 181 
Harmon, Capt., 253, 257 
Harrington, Timothy, 330, 369 
Hartshorn, Ebenezer, 358 
Harvey, Elizabeth, 22 

Thomas, 22 
Hassel, Anna, 180 

Benjamin, 180 
Hathori%e, Wiliam, 72, ^-^^ 93, 94 
Hawkins, John, 171 
Haynes, Mathias, 134 

Samuel, 31, 76, 134 
Hayward, Samuel, 355 
Hazzen, Richard, 296 
Healey, William, 134 
Heald, Timothy, 351 
Heard, 228 

Elizabeth, 174, 255 

Experience, 183 

John, 20, Z2>, 2)7, I39, 174 

Joseph, 344 

Lieut., 227 

Tristram, 255 
Heaton, Noah, 333 
Helme, Christopher, 44 
Henderson, John, 338 
Herd, Thomas, 20 
Herrick, Sarah, 19 
Hewetts, George, 351 
Haywood, John, 340 

Hickey, James, 375 

Hill, John, 71, 139, 353, 358 

Nathaniel, 139 

Samuel, 139 

Valentine, 39, 40, 72>, 280 
Hilliard, Benjamin, 92 
Hilton, Edward, 9, 10, 11, 12, 23, 56, 


Rebecca, 21 

William, 10, II, 21 

Winthrop, 224, 225, 226, 227 
Hinckes, John, 134, 137, 159, 167, 
196, 197 208 

Mary, 138 
Hinckson, Martha, 22 

Thomas, 22 
Hoar, Benjamin, 351 
Hobbs, Henry, 21 

Humphrey, 338, 339, 340 

Morris, 134 
Hobby, Charles, 303 
Hodgdon, Mrs. Jonathan, 344 
Holliock, Edward, 56 
Holmes, Joseph, 187 
Hood, Hope, 187 
Horn, John, 227 

Wiliam, 176 
Home, William, 139 
How, Caleb, 331 

Daniel, 333 

Nehemiah, 331 
Howard, William, 187 
Howe, Eliakim, 358 
Hubbard, Jonathan, 352 
Huckins, James, 139, 176 

Robert, 38, 177, 185 
Hudson, John, 76 
Hull, Joseph, 39, 71 

Reuben, 135 
Hunking, ^lark, 58, 235, 269 
Hunt, Bartholomew, 37 

Eliphalet, 299 
Huntoon, Philip, 227 

Samuel, 227 
Huse, Carr, 360 
Huske, Ellis, 272 
Hussey, Christopher, 48, 80, 103, 108 



Mary, 48 
Theodate, 108 
Hutchinson, John, 353 
Thomas, 295 

Ince, Jonathan, 54 

Jackson, Daniel, 187 
Hannah, 20 
Thomas, 20 

Walter, 76 
Jaffrey, George, 144, 235, 261, 270, 
287, 304, 305, 306, 308, 308 

James, 287 
James, Hugh, 23 

William, 23 
Jenkins, Ann, 183 

Stephen, 183 
Jenness, Richard, 359 
Jewell, John, 356 
Joce, Hannah, 107 

Jocelyn, Henr>', 15, 16, 17, 18, 24, 
30, 78 

Margaret, 17 
Johnson, Edward, 54 

Hannah, 20 

James, 19 

Mary, 20 
Jones, Alexander, 23 

Edmund, 4 

Elisha, 342 

Esther, 228 

Hannah, 22 

Jenkins, 139 

John, 23, 30, 187 

Margaret, 74, 75 

Marj', 23, 187 

Peggy, 187 

Samuel, 23 

Sarah, 23 

Stephen, 185 

William, 30, 37 

Kancamagus, 171 
Kennard, Elizabeth, 107 
Kenniston, John, 92, 253 
Kent, Henry O., 299 

Joseph, 185 
Kidder, Joseph, 351 

Reuben, 350, 358 
Kilburn, John, 368 

Josiah, 353 
Kimball, Aaron, 357 

Jeremiah, 357 

Reuben, 359 

Thomas, 95 
Kincaid, David, 226 
King, Samuel, 354 
Kirkland, Samuel, 4 
Knight, Anne, 20 

John, 375 

George, 375 

Roger, 17, 20 

Temple, 375 
Knollys, Hansard, 34, 38 

Ladd, Daniel, 324 
Nathaniel, 134 
Laham, Richard, 2)7 
Lamb, James, 360 
Lampson, Samuel, 354 
Lancaster, Thomas, 221 
Lander, John, 30 
Lane, Ambrose, 32, t^)' 375 

Sampson, 18, 374 
Langstaff, Henry, 22, 38, 139 

John, 22 
Larkham, Thomas, 35, 36, 37 
Lawson, Christopher, 44 
Leader, Richard, 374, 375 
Leare, Tobias, 80 
Leathers, Edward, 185 
Lee, Abraham, 174, 176 
Leighton, Thomas, 33, 2)1 
Leslie, George, 358 
Leverett, John, "j^ 
Leverick, William, 33, 34 
Levitt, Thomas, 44 
Lewis, Job, 355 

John, 23 

Martha, 23 

Philip, III, 139 

Thomas, 12 
Littlefield, Edmond, 44, 45 



Livingston, Philip, 288 
Locke, Elizabeth, 22 

John, 22, 187 
Lomax, Deliverance, 226 

Elizabeth, 226 

Nathaniel, 226 
Lovewell, John, 258, 259 

Jonathan, 351 
Lowden, Anthony, 187 
Lowe, John, 167 
Lucy, 22 

Mary, 22 
Lufkin, John, 343 
Lund, Thomas, 258 
Lunt, Daniel, 176 
Lynde, Benjamin, 354 
Lyon, Aaron, 333 

James, 358 

Maffett, Robert, 333 
Magoon, John, 227 
Main, Amos, 244 
Makepeace, Thomas, 56 
Mann, Daniel, 340 
Marcy, Joseph, 333 
March, Col. Clement, 225, 305 
Marsh, John, 356 
Marston, John, 22 

Mary, 22 

Thomas, iii, 134 

William, 135 
Martin, Nathaniel, 356 
Martyn, Richard, 76, 80, 103, 105, 
106, 107, III, 126, 127, 135, 164 
Mason, Ann, "jj 

John, 6, II, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 24, 
25, 29, ^^, 161, 373 

John Tufton, 303, 304, 305, 306, 
308, 324, 361 

Peter, 183 

Robert, 6, 26, 118, 119, 125, 127, 
128, 137, 159, 160, 161, 374 

Robert Tufton, TJ, 78, 79 

Sarah, 183 
Mathes, see Matthews 
Mathes, Benjamin, 75 
Mathews, Francis, 19, 44, 45, 256 

Thomasine, 19 
Mattoon, Hubertus, 223 

Richard, 223 
Maud, Daniel, 36 
Maverick, Samuel, 10, 59, ^^ 
McCalley, James, 358 
McClary, Andrew, 268 
McClure, Robert, 358 
McCoy, Charles, 268 
McGregor, James, 242 
McKeen, James, 243 
McKenny, Daniel, 340 

Mrs. Daniel, 332 
McPhaedris, Archibald, 269 
Meader, John, 139 

Nathaniel, 221 
Meinzies, James, 215 
Mellen, Henry, 357 

Thomas, 357 
Melvin, Eleazer, 339 
Merrill, John, 356 

Nathaniel, 360 
Meserve, Nathaniel, 305, 306, 324 

Tamsen, 222 
Mighill, Samuel, 223 
Mitchell, Ebenezer, 340 

George, 289, 296 

James, 353 

John, 243 
Minot, James, 359 

Jonas, 359, 360 
Moe, Peter, 187 
Moffat, John, 305, 30O 
Moody, Joshua, 57, 76, 80, 141, 142, 

144. 145. I4t> 147 

William, 226 

Capt., 253 
Moor, Thomas, 23 
Moore, Samuel, 305, 306, 324 
More, William, 134 
Morgan, Thomas, 269 
Moris, Richard, 44 
Morrill, Increase, 359 
Morrison, James, 352 

John, 243 
Morse, Obadiah, 135 
Mott, Philip de la, 41 



Moulton, Benjamin, 22 

Capt., 257 

Hannah, 22 

Henry, 134 

John, 48, 134 

Thomas, 48 
Muirhead, John, 242 

Nanney, Robert, 2>7 

Neale, Walter, 13, 14, 16, 17 

Needham, Nicholas, 44, 381-2 

Nelson, Mathew, 135 

Nesmith, John, 243 

Newt, see Nute 

Nicholls, Richard, 59 

Noble, Arthur, 328 

Nock, James, 256 

Norton, Francis, 18, 29 

John, 338 
Nute, Abraham, 23 

James, 2^, 37, 1Z 
Nutter, Anthony, 22, iii, 119, 139, 
142, 158 

Hatevil, ZZ, 39, 45> 7i 

Sarah, 22 

Odiorne, 22 

Elizabeth, 22 

John, 20 

Jotham, 269, 284, 287, 305 

Mary, 20 
Onion, Thomas, 187 
Osgood, Benjamin, 339 

John, 48 

Joseph, 353 
Otis, Grizel, 174 

John, 174 

]\Iary, 174 

Nicholas, 187 

Richard, 118, 174, 176, 187 

Stephen, 174 

Packer, Thomas, 287, 305, 306 
Page, Francis, 135 
Paine, Daniel, 333 

Thomas, 139, 175 
Palmer, Samuel, 361 

William, 30, 48 
Parker, David, 333 
Isaac, 331 

James, z^ 

Thomas, 355 

Wiliam, 289 
Parkhurst, Jonathan, 355 
Paris, Ferdinando John, 286, 293 
Parshley, Richard, 187 
Partridge, John, 141, 143, 375 

Richard, 291, 293 

William, 196, 197, 199, 201, 208, 
212, 375 
Passaconaway, 90 
Patten, ]\Iatthew, 354 

Samuel, 354 
Payson, Edward, 351 
Peabody, Richard, 351 
Pearl, John, 351 
Pearl, John, 224 

Nicholas, 223 
Peaslee, Daniel, 359 
Pease, Peltiah, 353 

Samuel, 223 
Peavey, Joseph, 361 
Pendleton, Brian, 31, 32, il^ 57, "jz^ 
80, 97 

James. 76 
Penhallow, Samuel, 106, 212, 219, 

235, ^Zl, 253, 254 
Pepperrell, Sir William, 321, 324, 326 
Perkins, Abraham, 92 
Perrin, Peter, ZZZ 
Perry, Christopher, 180 

Obadiah, 180, 359 
Peters, Obadiah, 343 
Pettit, Thomas, 44 
Petty, Joseph, 340 
Peverly, Jane, 22 

Jeremiah, 22 

John, 21, 22 

Lazarus, 22 

Martha, 22 

Samuel, 22 

Sarah, 22 

Thomas, 21, 22 
Philbrick, Thomas. 216 



Philips, John, 37 
Phillips, Ebenezer, 334 

Erasmus James, 287 
Phipps, Lt. Gov., 32S 

William, 330 

Thomas, 375 
Pickering, John, 30, 32, 33, 58, 80, 

III, 164, 194, 197, 215 
Pierce, Ann, 306 

Daniel, 306 

Joshua, 276, 305, 306, 320 
Pierce, Mary, 306 
Pike, John, 36 

Robert, 69, 73, 78 
Pinkham, John, 174 

Richard, 33, 2>7 

Mrs. Richard, 73 

Rose, 174 
Pitman, Ezekiel, 183 

Joseph, 222 
Plaisted, John, 208 
Platts, Abel, 351 
Pomery, Leonard, 7 

Rebecca, 22 

Thomas, 22 
Pomfret, William, 33, 38, 39 
Pormott, Philemon, zf4 
Potter, John, 288 
Presbury, William, 359 
Prescott, Peter, 358 
Preston, George, 68 
Priest, Eleazer, 338 

Sarah, 320 

Thomas, 320 
Pring, Martin, 4, 5 
Pudney, Joseph, 355 
Putnam, Seth, 332 
Pynchon, John, 159 

Quimby, Aaron. 356 

E. T., 298 

Moses, 356 

William, 356 
Quincy, Edmund, 291, 293 

Rand, Francis, 19 
John, 23, 184 

Nathaniel, 19 

Remembrance, 23, 184 

Samuel, 19 

Thomas, 19 
Randle, James, 135 
Randlet, Charles, 92 
Randolph, Edward, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 
106, 117, 118, 136, 138, 159, 161 
Rashleigh, Thomas, 45 
Rasle, Sebastian, 251, 252, 254, 257 
Rawlins, Aaron, 255 

Ichabod, 226 

Thomas, 134 
Ray, Patrick, 333 
Raymond, John, 17, 355 

William, 17 
Raj^n, Joseph, 138 
Read, Robert, 44 
Redman, John, 134, 373 
Reed, James, 351 

Thomas, 351 
Reyner, John, 34, 36, 67, 68, 72 
Rice, Thomas, 21 

Ralph, 340 
Richards, John, 344 

Joseph, 344 

Mary, 49 
Richardson, Joseph, 339 
Ricker, George, 223 

Judith, 187 

Marturin, 223 
Rindge, Ann, 284 

John, 284, 285, 287, 304, 306 
Rishworth, Edward. 44, 45 
Robbins. William, 333 
Roberts, Alexander, 343 

John, 70, III, 134, 139 

Moses, 344 

Thomas, 11, 27, 39, 58, 70, 71, 73. 
137, 139 

Timothy. 244 

William, Jt,, 91 
Robie, Ichabod. 216 
Robinson, John, 92 
Roby, Henry, 44, 135 
Rogers, James, 355 
Rolfe, Benjamin, 289, 342, 356 



Henry, 270 
Rollins, James, 27 
Root, Elisha, 369 
Rouse, John, 23 
Row, Nicholas, 30 
Rowen, Andrew, 361 
Rowls, 16, 20, 90 
Royall, Isaac, 321 
Rugg, David, 331 
Ruobone, see Habume 
Russell, Eleazer, 287 

St. Castine, Baron de, 171 
Salterne, Robert, 4 
Saltonstall, Nathaniel, 159 

Robert, 56, 374 
Sanborn, John, 80 

Jonathan, 216 

William, 80, 134 
Sanders, Joseph, 176 

William, 48 
Sartwell, Jonathan, 339 

Obadiah, 333 
Scales, James, 358 
Scott, Alexander, 353 
Selleck, David, 374 
Severance, Samuel, 340 
Seward, William, 324 
Shapleigh, John, 21 

Maj., 70 

Nicholas, 97 

Sarah, 21 
Shattuck, Daniel, 329 
Saunders, Edward, 17 
Savage, Elizabeth, 22 

Henry, 22 
Seavey, John, 22 

Stephen, 22 

William, 22, 23, 32 
Sergent, William, 48 
Seward, Robert, 44 
Sewer, John, 135 
Sheafe, Sampson, 201 
Sheppard, Samuel, 361 
Sherburne, Henry, 16, 20, 30, 32, ZZ> 
72>, 321, 324 

John, 17, 31, 58, 80, 134 

Joseph, 20 

Rebecca, 16 

Samuel, 162, 179 
Sherlock, James, 138, 161 
Sherman, John, 54 
Sherwill, Nicholas, 7, 8 
Shirley, William, 318, 326, 327 
Shute, Gov., 253, 255, 269 

Samuel, 234, 236, 237 
Sill, Joseph, 93, 94 
Simpson, Elizabeth, 344 

John, 355 
Sinclair, John, 76 
Skene, William, 287 
Skullard, Samuel, 48 
Sleeper, John, 134 
Sloper, Richard, 134 
Small, Francis, 373 
Smith, Andrew, 245 

Bartholomew, 37 

Ebenezer, 269, 361 

James, 7^ 

John, 5, 142, 162 

Joseph, 135, 162, 196, 201 

Robert, 44 

Thomas, 256 
Smyth, George, 7^, 382 
Solly, Samuel, 305, 306 
Spafford, John, 331, 333 
Spencer, Patience, 20 

Thomas, 16, 20 
Spinney, Thomas, 222 
Spofford, Nelson, 298 
Stanhope, Jonathan, 333 
Stanley, Jonathan, 351 
Starbuck, Edward, 38, 39 
Stark, Archibald, 355 
Stanyan, Anthony, iii 
Steele, Thomas, 243 

Sterrett, , 243 

Stevens, Charles, 338 

Ebenezer, 228, 256, 308, 360 

Ephraim, 256 

Joseph, 351 

Phinehas, 331, iZi, 334, 335, 338, 

Samuel, 226 



Stevenson, Bartholomew, 184, 226 

Joseph, 139, 184 

Thomas, 33, 139, 184 
Steward, John, 243 

Stickney, William, 343 
Stileman, Ellas, 57, 76, 80, 106, no, 

119, 127, 146 
Stoddard, Sampson, 351, 352, 353 
Stone, Thomas, 358 
Storer, William, 23, 37 
Story, Charles, 198, 215 
Storre, Augustine, 44 
Stoughton, William, 72, 159 
Sullivan, John, 312 
Sumner, Thomas, 353 
Swaddon, Philip, 27 
Swayne, Richard, 48 
Swett, Benjamin, 92 
Symes, William, 332, 359 
Symonds, John, 21 

Rebecca, 21 

Welthean, 21 

Taggard, John, 353 
Taler, Henry, 30 
Tasker, William, 135, 185 
Taylor, Edward, 221, 255 

Isaac, 340 

John, 223 

Thomas, 340 
Tebbetts, Nathaniel, 222 
Teddar, Stephen, 37 
Thaxter, Samuel, 260 
Thing, Jonathan, 135 
Thomas, James, 21 

John, 8, 10 

Martha, 21 
Thomlinson, John, 273, 276, 277, 285, 

286, 293, 304, 305, 319 
Thomson, Amias, 8 

David, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 375 
Thompson, John, 10, 76 

Robert, 226 
Thornton, Matthew, 324, 351, 352 
Thurton, Thomas, 149 
Tibbetts, Henry, 33 

Jeremy, 21 

Mary, 21 
Tilton, Jacob, 324 
Tippen, Bartholomew, 11 1 
Todd, Andrew, 358 
Tompkins, Mary, 67, 68, 69, 70 
Towle, Caleb, 92 
Treadwell, Jacob, 351 
Tuck, John, 135 

Robert, 48 
Tucker, Benjamin, 352 

John, 76, 187 
Tufton, Robert, 26 
Tufton, Robert, see Mason 
Turpin, Thomas, 74 1 

Tuttle, Ensign, 228 

John, 34 
Twombly, Ralph, 58 . 

Tyng, Col., 259 

Edward, 159 

John, 223 

Jonathan, 159, 168 

Ugroufe, John, ^7 
Underbill, John, 34, 35, 36, 37 
Usher, Elizabeth, 167 

John 159, 166, 167, 193, 198, 201, 
210, 212, 233, 2S4 

Valentine, John, 215 
Varney Ebenezer, 361 
Vassal, John, 353 
Vaudreuil, Marquis de, 260 
Vaughan, George, 18, 234, 236, 238, 

Margaret, 107 
William, 18, 80, 103, 106, 107, 127, 

135, 139, 140, 141. 157, 162, 164, 

167, 196, 210, 234, 324, 325, 326, 

Vernon, Samuel, 288 

Wadleigh, John, 134 

Joseph, 134 

Robert, 80, 134, 138 
Wainwright, 253 
Walcutt, John, 245 
Waldern, Richard, 37, 39, 67, 72, 172, 
I73> 373 



William, 2>1< 373 
Walderne, Richard, ^2, 73, 79, 80, 93, 
94. 95. 96, 103, 105, 108, 109, 
no, III, 119, 121, 126, 127, 135, 
137, 138, 139. 266 
Waldron see Waldern 
Waldron, Richard, 106, in, 119, 167, 
196, 208, 210, 266, 269, 287, 318, 
320, 321, 322, 323 

Thomas W., 324 

William, 56 
Walford, Jane, 74 

Jeremiah, 22 

John, 167 

Thomas, 22, 23 
Walker, James, 354 

Mary, 22 

Robert, 354 

Samuel, 44 

Thomas, 357 

Timothy, 270, 343, 356 

William, 22 
Wall, James, 22 

John, 30 
Walles, James, 44 
Wallingford, Thomas, 305, 306 
Walton, Benjamin, 270 

George, 30, 33, 44, 58, 75, 373 

John, 30 

Reuben, 353 

Samuel, 354 

Shadrach, 227, 228, 235, 253, 254, 
261, 269, 287 
Wannerton, Ann, 14, 18 

Thomas 14, 18, 29, 56, 374 
Ward, Josiah, 358 
Wardel, Eliakim, 68 

Thomas, 44 

William, 44 
Warner, Ezekiel, 288 
Warren, Peter, 326 
Wastill, John, 37 
Waterhouse, Richard, 13^ 
Watson, Robert, 185 
Weare, Elizabeth, 140 
Mechech, 321 

Nathaniel, 80, 135, 140, 149, I5<* 

157, 162, 167, 196, 201, 245, 246, 

Peter, 201 
Webb, George, 33, 37 
Webster, Ebenezer, 216, 360 
Wedgewood, John, 227 
Weir, Robert, 243 
Weld, Thomas, 168 
Wenbourne, William, 44 
Wentworth, Benning, 271, 276, 284, 

304, 306, 308, 309, 318, 319, 320, 

321, 323, 329, 361, 365 
John, 235, 238, 245, 251, 259, 261, 

265, 267, 269, 272, 305, 306, 344, 


Mark Hunking, 305, 306 

Martha, 319 

Mary, 238 

Samuel, 134, 238 

William, 40, 44, 238, 79, 174 
Westbrook, John, 22 

Martha, 22 

Thomas, 235, 254 
Weymouth, Edward, 70 
Wharton, Edward, 68, 71 

Richard, 159 
Wheeler, John, 223 
Wheelwright, John, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 

Marie, 41 
Mary, 42 
White, Archibald, 350 
Whiting, William, 56 
Whitman, John, 357 
Whitton, Samuel, 324 
Wibird, Richard, 235, 261, 271, 305, 

Wiggin, Andrew, 80, 245, 287, 304, 
Jonathan, 270 
Sarah, 157 
Thomas, 33, 34, 39, 49, 56, 72, 73, 

Wight, Thomas, 44 
Wilcox, Obadiah, 353 
Wilkins, Daniel, 354 
Wilks, Francis, 285, 293, 304 



Willard, Josiah, 287, 332, 368 

Simon, 54 
Williams, Ann, 18 

Edward, 324 

Francis, 18, 30, 36, 56, 73 

Helen, 18 

John, 20 

Thomas, 18, 20 

William, 20, S3< 73 
Willis, George, 56 
Wilson, Humphrey, 135 

Thomas, 44 
Wilton, John M., 299 
Winchell, Jedediah, 333 
Wingate, John, 137, 139 
Winslow, Edward, 287 

Samuel, 227 
Winthrop, John Fitz, 159 

Wait, 159 

Wiswall, Noah, 178 
Withers, Jane, 21 

Mary, 21 

Thomas, 21 
Wonalancet, 90, 93 
Woodman, John, 139, 142, 208 
Woodward, Abel, 352 
Woodwell, Benjamin, 341, 342 

Daniel, 341, 342 

Mary, 341, 342 

Mrs., 341, 342 

Thomas, 341, 342 
Woolson, Jonas, 350 
Worthley, Thomas, 356 
Wright, Benjamin, 334 
Wyer, Eliezer, 14 

Yale, David, 374 
York, Richard, 35 






1^ ^ 


Los Angeles 
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 


|W SEP 28 1973 

DEC 14 1976 


NOV 1 1983 
JAN 09 1993 

Form L9-Series 444 

^ov 4 iy% 





w ■ 

-'^^1^-.;- -^JN;--- 'npf- - --"^ 


•t»- i^ -*r ^ ^ ^s 

"^ ■^- *^ ^J^- ^- ^Jt -^ffc 

k ,►- 4^ «(t.. ■^. A. ^ ^. 




♦ 4 

4 (-1 

^ ■ 

. * *■ 4 4 * ' 4 

t ^4 , # # #■' ; # : * 3 il58"06899"8840" 

^- # * * 4 4 * : ^ 

■^ "* * .*. , *, ■#■ ^# # * . # 

* * * * ^, * * * < 

* * * ' ■# * 

i 4 ,#-••■# if ^ |. ^ ,-^ 

* 4 ' # 4 * ,^- ♦ ^ ^ 4 
* * ^^ * * # * * * ♦ 

f * * s/ i 

* * * 


*> 4 

4 4 

4 * 


M# ♦ 

* 4 

f * 

f- f # 


4 * 4 


i- 4 * 

*- * 

* * # 

4 ^ 

* * 

4 4 

4 4* 


4 t 

4 * 

4 * 4 


4 * 

4 #■ 

* 4 4 

4 4 

* 4 

* 4 

* #» * 

4 4 

-< * 

4 4 

< # 

# * 




^ ' i 







* -* 

:# # 

4 4" -4 

'JL- i£ J 

r- ^ 

KV, t.t.Vi'i'.'AWitV.